Gen. Wesley Clark: Clinton's approach deters a rush to war

[NewHampster]

By GEN. WESLEY CLARK

Sunday, Oct. 14, 2007

In the back and forth on Iran, one critical issue is being missed: which candidate will create the strategic shift necessary to deal with the challenge of Iran and help end the fighting in the Middle East? I believe that candidate is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Last month, Senator Clinton voted for a non-binding resolution that urges the administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization in order to strengthen our diplomatic hand. And earlier this month, she joined Sen. Jim Webb in co-sponsoring a bill that would prohibit the use of funds for military action in Iran without specific authorization by Congress. Her strong support for congressional leverage and a strong national posture is what is needed to engage Iran.

Manchester Union Leader OpEd Piece http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gen.+Wesley+Clark%3A+Clinton's+approach+deters+a+rush+to+war&articleId=0245c84d-6a83-4f93-af98-faa465770b4e

Great analysis on dKos http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/15/195217/08

Wes Clark is a man of few words. In exactly 611 of them, he spells out the fallacies in recent attempts by various groups within the Democratic party to recharacterize the Kyl-Lieberman amendment as something it is not for political purposes. Wes did this in the Manchester Union-Leader op-ed piece he wrote for Sunday's paper. Basically, his premise is that:

• Hillary's strong support for congressional leverage and a strong national posture is what is needed to engage Iran.

• Leveraged diplomacy is what the situation calls for, not the Bush administration's failure to engage.
• Nothing in Kyl-Lieberman could be construed as authorization for military action by a reasonable observer, and Hillary has consistently spoken out on the need for explicit authorization by Congress prior to any military action.
• The situation calls for action now, and the right thing to do is put pressure on the Bush Administration to engage Iran diplomatically.

[mike_c]

1. "...the challenge of Iran..."

Therein lies the real problem, which Sen. Clinton and General Clark both accept as axiomatic. Iran is only a "challenge" in the context of U.S. hegemony in the middle east-- a neocolonialist foreign policy that is utterly venal and corrupt. We should not be having this debate-- rather, we should be dabating how we can change U.S. foreign policy for the better.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Endless wars is the outcome of what Hillary and Clark advocate

I tremble to think what Hillary is planning to do to retake Latin America.

[BootinUp]

7. I think

unstable, barely democratic, terrorist supporting states should all have nukes, just like you.


:sarcasm:

[Sparkly]

21. Which candidates don't consider Iran a challenge? nt

[IndianaGreen]

2. Hillary played you for a fool, Clark! Read the neocon article Hillary wrote for Foreign Affairs

an article that is now being quoted by the British press, as well as the WSJ:

The Guardian's headline: Clinton would use violence against Tehran

Hillary Clinton today moved to secure her position as the most hawkish Democrat in the 2008 presidential race, saying she would consider the use of force to compel Iran to abandon its nuclear programme.

<snip>

It arrives only days after Ms Clinton was severely criticised by her Democratic rivals for backing a Senate resolution calling on the US government to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guards, the elite division of Tehran's military, a terrorist entity.

The measure has been argued strenuously by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, and other neocons, but such a sweeping designation does not appear to have the support of the state department.

Ms Clinton was the only Democratic candidate to support the resolution, and her rivals said her vote could help the Bush administration make a future case for war against Iran.

Unlike the five other candidates to sketch out their vision of foreign policy to date, Ms Clinton gave little indication of her comprehensive world view.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/hillaryclinton/story/0,,2191830,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

[NewHampster]

4. poop

[UGADUer]

6. Clark is no peacenik; he's a former conservative Republican-turned

-moderate Democrat who's quite a securitynik.

[BootinUp]

8. How do you determine he was a "Conservative-Republican"

since he was actually an independent prior to registering as a Democrat I would be very interested in your explanation.

General Clark knows war, he doesn't want another one. www.stopiranwar.com

You might disagree with him on the best political strategy to do that, me I tend to at least give him a listen. He's a very intelligent man who has more than proved over the last 4 years that he is not in this for show or personal gain.

[UGADUer]

9. He's certainly a very bright man and no warmonger

But he is part of the "security establishment" and if you ever start talking about cutting the military budget or shutting down the torture camp a few miles south of me in Fort Benning, he'll laugh at you. Like he said to students on the campaign trail in 2003, "I'm a proud graduate of the military-industrial complex."

[BootinUp]

13. I would suggest

that even you will admit we need a security establishment. Clark answered a personal calling that he heard from President Kennedy. He gave his skills and intelligence over to his country for most of his adult life, thinking he was helping to protect an important Democracy. Don't use that against him. If you disagree with his outlook on Fort Benning or other military issues, then that is perfectly understandable. However, you might consider that he knows some things about it you do not. Ask the tough questions, I have heard him discuss it before and I thought he gave a carefully considered answer. If you have already decided you know the best answer, then perhaps you should keep looking for someone who agrees with you and chastise Clark for not doing so. That is of course your choice.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Honestly, he is worth looking into a little further

Clark has been a loud and consistently strong voice against the use of torture and in favor of the U.S. adhering fully to the Geneva conventions. He has spoken against the influence of the military industrial complex, and said that military budgets are on the table for cutting. Clark is critical of the Republican zeal for huge budget high tech weapons systems that end up costing a fortune and are often ill fitted for our real security needs. I am on the road not on my computor and having to work so I don't have links handy or the time to look for them - but I think your read on him here, regarding the specifics at the very least, is false.

[Texas_Kat]

15. Wrong......Thi is what he actually said in 03

I think General Eisenhower was exactly right, I think we should be concerned about the military-industrial complex.

I think if you look at where the country is today you've consolidated all these defense firms into just a few large firms — like Halliburton — and with contracts and contacts at the top level of government. You've got most of the retired generals are one way or another associated with the defense firms — that's the reason that you'll find very few of them speaking out in any public way — I'm not. When I got out I determined I wasn't going to sell arms, I was going to do as little as possible with the Department of Defense because I just figured it was time to make a new start.

But I think the military-industrial complex does wield a lot of influence — I'd like to see us create a different complex. And I'm going to be talking about foreign policy in a major speech tomorrow, but we need to create an agency that is not about waging war but about creating conditions for peace around the world. We need some people who will be advocates for peace, advocates for economic development abroad, not just advocates for better weapon systems. So we need to create countervailing power to the military-industrial complex.
Interview with Laura Knoy, New Hampshire Public Radio (5 November 2003)

http://www.nhpr.org/node/5339

I'll bet your 'source' isn't 'linkable" cos it doesn't exist.

[calteacherguy]

12. Obviously, you know nothing about Clark.

He's never been a Republican, much less a conservative Republican. I respectfully request that you please educate yourself next time before babbling bullshit arround here. Thanks.

[Texas_Kat]

17. As of today, Clinton is the only co-sponsor of the Webb amendment

-- a bill prohibiting the use of funds for an attack on Iran. Where are the rest of the Senate Democrats? Why haven't they signed on again?

Just fyi, you can't seem to link directly to bill in Thomas, but it's S.759 .

Look it up.... and explain it if you can.

[Cameron27]

19. Thanks, good info.

Where the hell are the rest of them?

[Texas_Kat]

20. I was absolutely SHOCKED when I looked up the status

and found them all Missing in Action.

Hillary Clinton may not be my favorite politician, but damn these other guys are all mouth, no action.

[UGADUer]

5. General Clark, if you want to be secretary of state so badly

Just ask.

[tkmorris]

10. Sucking up for a spot in the cabinet

Seriously, I am losing respect for Clark lately. The bullshit is getting pretty blatant.

[BootinUp]

16. Can you be more specific

what are the major concerns you have?

[calteacherguy]

11. Obama voted to name the IRG a terrorist group in a previous bill.

Some politicians are such hypocrites.

Thanks for posting.

[Tellurian]

18. Well think about this gentleman.. no semantics please..

Putin has just stepped into the mix and is backing Iran if Bush/Cheney pulls any funny stuff.