Clark: "We need to address with the Iranians exactly what they are afraid of."

[Clarkie1]

Is there any other Presidential candidate (or potential candidate) who would dare make such a statement? Is there any other candidate who would dare focus not on our own overblown fears, but the fears of our enemies in order to move toward a solution?

Yes, it's a rhetorical question...

full video (from Clark's appearance on FOX today) here:

http://www.ptnine.com/020207.WMV

[lancdem]

1. We do need to engage them

Absolutely.

[IndianaGreen]

2. Wes Clark is totally wrong about Iran!

Doesn't he realize that the United States never has a dialog with adversaries, preferring conflict to diplomacy? Real macho leaders, including women Presidential wannabees, should huff and puff and do a war dance instead of doing what Baker-Hamilton recommended about talking to Syria and Iran.

What's wrong with Clark? Why can't he be more like the chicken hawks in both parties that prefer to boast and threaten wars which others will have to fight.

Geee....

[FrenchieCat]

7. Actually, it was Clark's recommendation that Baker-Hamilton took

From Steve Clemons at Huffington Post:

"Wesley Clark gets credit for the same sort of thing for being the first major political personality to bluntly say that America needed to engage in direct US-Iran negotiations. What Wes Clark did both in September 2005 and then January 2006 at New America Foundation conferences and then on Meet the Press was brave then and has become conventional wisdom today."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/bidens-zingers-weighin_b_40240.html

[madrchsod]

3. clark?

you mean the guy who stood up to the thugs in Yugoslavia? the guy that stopped the genocide in the balkans? the guy who along with clinton liberated hundreds of thousands from the death squads? the guy who along with clinton was honored with a total shut down of a country to celebrate them visiting their country? the guys who had children named after them?

na, we don`t need a guy that talks softly and carries a big stick...

[Peace Patriot]

4. He is so right. That is exactly the problem--their fear, based on...

---US/UK/Israel destroyed Iran's democracy in 1954, and inflicted the Iranian people with 25 years of torture and oppression under the horrible Shah of Iran--driving them into the arms of the mullahs, for what they could gain them in self-determination and equitable use of the oil (no sultans in Iran). They have no reason to trust us.

---Israel has nukes, and likely has aggressive intentions (--bombed Lebanon recently, killing many people and severely damaging their new and fragile democracy and multi-cultural society)

---The Bush Junta, early on, called them part of the "Axis of Evil." Iran has invaded no one. None of the 9/11 hijackers came from Iran. Yet the hostile language and saber-rattling are intensifying, and a US attack fleet is assembling in the Persian Gulf.

---Pakistan has nukes--right on their border--fear that those nukes could be used against Iran if instability arises in that country, which is now harboring Taliban and Al Qaeda. (Iran--a Persian country--has no love for Arabs or Saudi-type Islam.)

--We have created a complete disaster on Iran's border--in the chaos in Iraq.

And we wonder why they want nukes.

[Captain Hilts]

5. He's My Guy. nt

[wtmusic]

6. Who said they were afraid?

:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

8. Well I think 140,000 troops close to one's border might make one

anxious, if nothing else. But of course, I'm only making an intelligent guess.

Actually, I believe that it was a figure of speech.

Clark has said before that our current administration act like they are afraid of doing diplomacy...so it goes both ways.

[wtmusic]

19. Condescending

How would Americans view it if Ahmadinejad expressed a desire to know "what we were afraid of", without that being stated on our part?

Wes continues to reinforce his credentials as a wonderful general and a pathetic diplomat.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. This is silly

Clark knows a number of influential people inside Iran who support his diplomatic initiative. If anything it is condescendign to imply that Iranians would be foolish enough to take offense at these words. Every national leader understands the need to speak to one's home audiance in terms they can relate to while trying to whip up support for a policy intitiative. Do you think Iranian leaders are such thin skinned self centered ego maniacs that they would throw up their hands in disgust at the leading American advocate of peaceful coexistance with them, because he suggested to an American audiance that Iran might have more to fear from the strongest nation on earth than the strongest nation on earth has to fear from Iran? Especially when the opposing American viewpoint to Clark's is that Iran is part of an axis of evil? Give me a break.

[TwilightZone]

9. How could they *not* be afraid?

Bush's rhetoric about Iran is eerily similar to his rhetoric prior to invading Iraq.

If it were me, I'd be concerned.

[derby378]

12. It's not just Bush - the tete-a-tete between America and Iran has lasted for decades

The Persians have a long and colorful history stretching over thousands of years, and the last thing they want to become is the plaything of some other nation (like us). Clark is better equipped to address the history and motivations of the Iranian people than Bush will ever be, but Clark also has to deal with what went down between America and Iran for the last 50 years.

[Adelante]

10. I may be misunderstanding your question

But neocons in two countries are ready to bomb the shit out of Iran. I would guess they would be afraid.

[Schema Thing]

11. Everybody's afraid.

And Iran certainly is. They'd be crazy not to be.

[Adelante]

13. An Iranian-American blogger

I just came across this. I'm kind of antsy for a transcript, but this has a bit of detail.

Yesterday I wrote that several signs indicated Wes Clark was ready for a second Presidential run. After Clark’s speech at the DNC Winter Meeting, where DNC Chair Howard Dean referred to the former NATO Allied Supreme Commander as an “imminent candidate,” it’s now pretty clear that Clark is going to hop in the race.

Clark’s speech centered around national security issues as was expected (although he didn’t say the phrase he’s been using lately “I’m the national security candidate”), and he quoted Douglas MacArther about the sacrifice being made by US troops abroad after a grinning disclaimer “I don’t agree with his politics, I don’t agree with everything he did.”

Clark also talked about global warming and several international issues, saying in his speech “I think we need a president who understands how to take us out of Iraq; how to deal with multiple international challenges — Iran, North Korea, terrorism, immigration, global warming, international trade; how to reenergize the American spirit and how to put us on the right path to a strong, secure and just America,”

Some Washington insiders believe Clark will jump in the race as soon as 10 days from now. Nevertheless, C-SPAN was instructed to identify him as merely a former Presidential candidate.

http://www.thedailybackground.com/2007/02/02/followup-clark-looks-nearly-ready-to-enter-race/

[bonito]

14. Wesley Clark will be the next President n/t

[babylonsister]

15. It's called diplomacy, something this current admin knows nothing about. nt

[slipslidingaway]

16. "To win in these countries you have to build a whole foundation

around the military forces..."

thanks.

[Clarkie1]

18. "It's not enough to rely on great generals, great generals, or great marines

you've got to have the right diplomacy, you've got to be able to help governments meet the needs of their people, you even have to mediate between quarreling governments in the region. And actually what's happened so much in this region over the last five years is that we have relied on our military, but we haven't done the rest of the government actions that need to be done. We haven't had the strong diplomacy, we haven't created the means to help the ministries work in these countries and bring govenment services to people. We haven't really affected people's lives in a positive sense, and after awhile the military impact of our soldiers just wears off."



By "these countries" Clark was referring to Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Donna Zen]

17. After reading Chalmers Johnson

I now better understand several things that Wes Clark has said in the past. He said that currently our country's foreign policy is being shaped by the military. Clark called that dangerous. And Clark has said the it is the strategic framework that must be changed, because that is driving this military build-up and basing that will lead to the "Long War" something that he doesn't agree with.

I don't know if I dreamed it, but I do believe that I've heard him say that we must reduce the number of our bases. That we wouldn't want China to park a naval armada off of our coast, so why would any other country be happy with facing our long guns.

General, that's right, General Clark understands very well our dangerous course on our road to empire. He has spoken on more than one occasion about the history of lost democracies. He gets it.

This is all so distressing. I see a host of candidates who either don't understand the nature of the strategic framework, or don't want to see it because they are powerless to effect any change. Oh, and then there is our imperial mistress of global corporations vying for our votes by handing out monogrammed plastic water bottles to the masses. (God save me from this crazy shit!)

Okay...now we can return to watching the MSM 08 horse race that is all sound and fury solving nothing. The MSM=traitors, simpletons and charlatans.

[Faryn Balyncd]

21. Say it again, Clarkie1:

"Is there any other candidate who would dare focus not on our own overblown fears, but the fears of our enemies in order to move toward a solution?"











Kicked & Recommended.

[mainer]

22. If he's not President, I want him for Secretary of State

He's the one person talking sense.

[Coexist]

23. that was awesome. nt

[Tatiana]

24. Wow! Imagine that... a potential presidential candidate advocating diplomacy over bombs! n/t