A letter from Wes Clark regarding Iran

[Auntie Bush]

Yesterday, the AP reported that the Bush-Cheney Administration has instituted "sweeping new sanctions against Iran Thursday -- the harshest since the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in 1979 -- charging anew that Tehran supports terrorism in the Middle East, exports missiles and is engaging in a nuclear build up."

There are 3 choices in dealing with Iran. You can engage them. You can isolate them. Or you can attack them.

These sanctions could be part of any of the 3 strategies. The sanctions themselves can only be evaluated within the context of the overall policy. Currently, the administration has chosen a path of isolation with the threat of an attack.

This is the wrong strategy. The Bush-Cheney Administration's failure to use diplomacy in conjunction with these sanctions is unlikely to change Iran's behavior.

Send a message to everyone you know. Urge them to join our effort to stop war with Iran.

The AP reported that Condoleezza Rice says Washington remains committed to "a diplomatic solution" and open to negotiations with Iran. Yet the Bush Administration refuses to speak with Iran unless the Iranians pre-emptively surrender their interests. This is not likely to happen, and the Administration will be left with two options: a nuclear Iran or war.

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) stated yesterday:

"Unilateral sanctions rarely, ever work...I just don't think the unilateral approach and giving war speeches helps the situation. It will just drive the Iranians closer together...It escalates the danger of a military confrontation."

Diplomacy is about carrots and sticks. Unfortunately, the Administration seems to believe it only has sticks. They have continued their saber-rattling, and without diplomacy, the announced sanctions only serve to escalate the tensions between the U.S. and Iran.

It is time to begin direct dialogue without conditions. War with Iran is not the answer.

Click here and recruit 5 people to join our effort to stop war with Iran.

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Wes Clark

[sniffa]

1. and he backs cLinton?

so she gets to vote for it, but then send her attack dog out to say the opposite?

great!

[geek tragedy]

3. Wes supported Kyl-Lieberman, he just opposes its provisions. n/t

[sniffa]

9. oh ok, so he's fLip fLopper then?

[wyldwolf]

4. she gets to vote for what?

[Inspired]

50. It's absurd, really.

But it was all part of the plan so I'm not surprised at all. Just puzzled. Nothing about politics surprises me anymore.

[geek tragedy]

2. I thought you liked Kyl-Lieberman, Wes?

You praised Kyl-Lieberman as standing up to Bush.

Now, you're complaining because Bush is doing what Kyl-Lieberman asked him to do?

Pathetic.

[TwilightGardener]

6. When did Wes praise the K/L amendment? Did I miss something?

[geek tragedy]

7. He said Clinton was right to vote for it and that it was a

'vote for diplomacy.'

I guess he's in non-sycophant mode today.

[flpoljunkie]

8. Wes Clark first said that he was "uneasy" about Kyl-Lieberman before he supported Hillary's yes vote

[TwilightGardener]

13. Yes, that's what I heard. It didn't sound like true support of K/L, more of a

"I could see shy she voted for it" kind of statement.

[geek tragedy]

19. So he was uneasy before he supported it before he opposed

its implementation.

And I was a Clarkie.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Let's talk about the actual letter for a sec, since that it what the thread is about

Do you disagree with what Clark says here, and if so, how? Do you think this letter might help efforts to organize against attacking Iran, or do you think it will hurt them? Do you wish Clark had not sent out this email or are you glad that he did?

[Auntie Bush]

22. I'm glad that he did. LOL

[DemFemme]

26. Obviously, that talk about being "uncomfortable" never happened.

John Kyl and Joe Lieberman are well-known for standing up to Bush. :eyes:

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. So tell me...

...what are you doing to stop a war with Iran from happening? And what about this email do you disagree with?

[Clark2008]

55. What regiment did you command? What diplomacy did you broker?

Oh - that's right, you posted on a fucking blog. That makes YOU an expert.

Pathetic.

:eyes:

[PATRICK]

5. Sanctions

are creating real pressure, but without diplomacy they may be actually mistaken for a sign of weakness of policy shift away from war, to make Iran "submit" without force. As in Iraq it may redouble the efforts of the sane to intervene but in ways that only strengthen the power and resolve of the intransigent key leader as well. The belief that sanctions(scorned by the Bush administration as a tool against Iraq) are even a hint of some sort of victory over the war threat might even be something the administration hopes for to actually further the inevitability of war. The Israelis though I am sure are very upset that Junior indeed may crow victory if Iran backs down and eats enough dirt to replace the war plan.

In this deliberate mess, sanctions are no stabilizing tool to lessen the chance for war and thus are a first act of aggression on the unaltered path toward it.

[bdamomma]

10. after watching that PBS Frontline Show down with Iran

this will be another big blunder with deadly consequences made by * and Cheney for many many people.

[Auntie Bush]

11. Think about what is important to stop a war with Iran,,,not politics.

"the Administration seems to believe it only has sticks. They have continued their saber-rattling, and without diplomacy, the announced sanctions only serve to escalate the tensions between the U.S. and Iran."

Unfortunately... that is exactly what bush* WANTS and is TRYING to do... escalate the tensions. He IS and HAS been deliberately trying to do everything in his power to start another war...after all he says he is the "War president" and he's making sure he lives up to that promise.

This is the time to FORGET the election for a moment and do what's best for our country....DO EVERYTHING IN YOUR POWER TO HELP STOP THE WAR IN IRAN!

Who voted for what bill should have nothing to do with this post...that's a topic for another post.

[slipslidingaway]

12. Link to stopiranwar...

http://www.stopiranwar.com/

"All Americans want to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and interfering on the ground inside Iraq. Yet President Bush’s saber rattling gives the US little additional leverage to engage and dissuade Iran, and, more than likely, simply accelerates a dangerous slide into war. The United States can do better than this.

Whatever the pace of Iran’s nuclear efforts, in the give and take of the Administration’s rhetoric and accusations, we are approaching the last moments to head off looming conflict.

Cannot the world’s most powerful nation deign speak to the resentful and scheming regional power that is Iran? Can we not speak of the interests of others, work to establish a sustained dialogue, and seek to benefit the people of Iran and the region? Could not such a dialogue, properly conducted, begin a process that could, over time, help realign hardened attitudes and polarizing views within the region? And isn’t it easier to undertake such a dialogue now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions?

Please join the Iraq War veterans at VoteVets.org and me and sign the petition to President Bush today. Military force against Iran is not the solution now, and if we adopt the right strategy, perhaps it need never be. Urge him to work with our allies and use every diplomatic, political, and economic option at our disposal to deal with Iran. War is not the answer."

[Auntie Bush]

14. Nice... Let's stop the talk and get over there and sign that petition! n/t

[slipslidingaway]

15. Already done that, it's been around for quite some time and I

do not remember very much discussion last year when the Senate passed this by Unanimous Consent.

:shrug:

9/30/2006:
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.


http://www.kucinichforcongress.com/floor_speeches/iran_not_threat28sep.php

"Iran Is Not an Imminent Threat

Dennis Kucinich speaking from the Floor of the House

Link to this entry in the Congressional Record
Sep 28, 2006

Speaking in opposition to H.R. 6198, the Iran Freedom Support Act, Congressman Kucinich said:

"Mr. Speaker, it is important to go back a little bit in history here. The Iraq Accountability Act of 1998 was about funding a media propaganda machine which was, unfortunately, used to lay the groundwork for a war against Iraq. That act was about encouraging and funding opposition inside Iraq, unfortunately, to destabilize Iraq prior to a war.

"You could call this bill the 'Iran Accountability Act.' This act funds media propaganda machines to lay the groundwork for a war against Iran. It encourages and funds opposition inside Iran for that same purpose.

"Notwithstanding what the words are in this bill, we have been here before. This Administration is trying to create an international crisis by inflating Iran's nuclear development into an Iraq-type WMD hoax. 'Iran is not an imminent threat'; this, from Dr. Hans Blitz, former Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector, speaking to our congressional oversight subcommittee the other day.

"The International Atomic Energy Agency points out that Iran has an enrichment level of about 3.6%. You have to go to 90% to have weapons-quality enrichment. Iran is not an imminent threat. Iran does not have nuclear weapons.

"This is a time for us to engage Iran with direct talks, our President to their President. This is the time to give assurance to Iran that we are not going to attack them.

"Unfortunately, this Administration has chosen to conduct covert ops in Iran. This Administration has chosen to select 1,500 bombing targets with the Strategic Air Command. This Administration has chosen plans for a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. This Administration looked the other way when a congressional staff report basically claimed that Iran was trying to engage in nuclear escalation.

"We don't need war, we need to talk, and that is what we ought to stand for here. No more Iraqs."

"

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Exactly. Most here have forgotten when that Iran legislations passed

Congress is just starting to wake up to the threat of a Bush attack on Iran now - and that includes all of our current Presidential candidates other than Dennis. Clark has been way ahead of the curve warning about approaching war with Iran. What Clark is saying in this letter is not a departure for him at all. Finally more people are starting to wake up to what Dennis Kucinich and Wes Clark have been warning about all along.

[slipslidingaway]

17. Yes there were plenty of opportunities to question the

administration about their position and language on Iran. And I remember you posting that petition several times and having at least one conversation with you about the need to curtail the push for war on Iran. There was never very much discussion even here at DU, too much attention being paid to the current war and not enough on stopping the next aggression :(

So while I'm happy that other candidates are speaking out now, I also feel that some damage has been done with regard to sentiment on Iran. There were some people that just let the marketing continue.

Even now the talk is more an attack on another candidate instead of pushing back on the administration IMO. It would be funny if the topic were not so serious.

Clark, Kucinich and Tom :) have been the leaders on this issue.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3645723&mesg_id=3645791

That's great, but where has he been on this issue for the last couple of years while the administration and media have been turning public sentiment towards a war with Iran. Is it safe now that others have paved the way?

And of course he is using the issue to attack his rivals instead of speaking about the ongoing inspections / findings and Iran's right to enrich uranium under the NPT. From what I've read Edwards speaks of giving enriched uranium to Iran for their energy needs, they will be dependent on others for the fuel, I think that some in Iran might see that as a form of control.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. A number of netroots folks posted often about Iran over the last couple of years

It was probably almost three years ago that it hit me smack between the eyes that General Clark, not exactly a guy known for making wild military predictions, was seriously saying that the Bush Administration might very well attack Iran. When that finally got through my own dense denial it sent chills down my spine and yup, it has been a frequent topic of my blogging here, at kos, and at my own blog, but I was by no means alone in talking about it. I remember that we did have a serious exchange about this subject before. Still, there weren't ENOUGH of us talking about it until VERY recently.

I share your concern that even now, too much of the time talk about stopping war with Iran is just being used as another political football in campaign season. If that weren't the case does any one doubt that EVERY Democrat who voted for Kyle - Lieberman would constantly be getting called out as a group on DU and elsewhere instead of it almost always ending up as an attack only on Hillary by someone who supports a different candidate? Seriously I think most of the people initially got upset for two and two reasons only; one is that Lieberman had his name on the bill and the netroots loves to hate Lieberman.

If some other blue dog Democrats had his name on the exact same bill only half as many people would have noticed. As you point out above with your post quoting Kucinich standing against the anti-Iran War tide in Congress before, hardly anyone around here cared. Where was all the outrage then? The second point of course is Presidential politics and people trying to score points against opponents in that horse race. SUDDENLY Democratic candidates are warning Bush against attacking Iran, ALMOST as often as they warn Clinton "not to encourage Bush". Where were they all when the Democratic Party chose to bottle up efforts in both Houses to force Bush to get specific Congressional authority before attacking Iran?

The proof to me about whether we are serious about stopping an attack on Iran or not will be if at least half of all the posters now attacking Clinton over Iran begin to do something, anything at all, to put pressure on Congress to "clarify" the supposedly terribly dangerous message that K/L sent Bush, other than repeatedly attacking Clinton who now happens to be the only co-sponsor Webb has. If possible misunderstandings about that "sense of the Senate" resolution is such a threat to Peace, then why the hell aren't we working to get the Webb Amendment passed? Is this really just about trying to pull Clinton back from her frontrunners postion? Wouldn't that be a form of using war or the threat of it to gain a political advantage? Isn't that what the Bush Administration did in 2002 and 2004, only from the other side?

[slipslidingaway]

27. Some do not believe we need the Webb bill, thinking of the

recent article by Mario Cuomo, as always there are different thoughts on that issue and I am certainly not a legal expert. After removing the 'Iran language' from the recent supplemental bill there was at least one attempt in the House to limit military action against Iran, but it/they failed. Attaching an amendment to one of the funding bills instead of a separate bill would seem to make the most sense.

FWIW

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/10/in-wake-of-increasing-reports-that.html

http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10789

Even the 'outrage' now is mostly for political reasons and to attack one candidate or another instead of discussing what our policy should be with respect to Iran.

Yes, I would say for the most part you are correct and rarely is there any mention of the lives that could be affected :(

"Is this really just about trying to pull Clinton back from her frontrunners postion? Wouldn't that be a form of using war or the threat of it to gain a political advantage? Isn't that what the Bush Administration did in 2002 and 2004, only from the other side?"

[Cameron27]

18. K&R

:thumbsup:

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. The tight framing Clark used here is very, very, skilled

He didn't write a long letter becaue long letters are less likely to be read. There is nothing complicated here, Clark makes it very simple and clear as glass to understand:

Three options: A,B,C. Clark explains in a mere handful of words how option A is now being sabatouged by Bush/Cheney (preconditions for talks, all stick/no carrot). Clark uses a Republican's words to underscore the point about where things are destined to end up with the current course.

Then he closes with a policy reccomendation boiled down to a mere 16 words:

"It is time to begin direct dialogue without conditions. War with Iran is not the answer."

Top to bottom well under 500 words, call to action included. I think this is f__king brilliant.

[BootinUp]

24. Of course it is Tom n/t

[Donna Zen]

47. Question

I agree with Wes Clark said in the letter. My question is how the General can reconcile his what he is advocating with Senator Clinton's recent statement that the Iranian hardliners must be "isolated" and we must only engage with the Iranian moderates. Yes, the moderates are where we will most likely to find common ground; however, the hardliners must also be engaged if we are to actually have a dialog since they are now in charge.

My greatest disagreement with the K-L bill is that it is empowering the hardliners and making the moderates look like fools. Nothing I'm reading has changed that reading of the situtation, in fact, recent movement in Iran have supported it.

For me there was a glaring disconnect between what Wes Clark wrote, and what Clinton is saying.

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. I think a comparison could be with "angry Islam" and Al Quada

Clark for a long time has talked about our need to engage in a war of ideas with those in Islam who are angry with the West; that we can't either ignore them or somehow think we can simply destroy them. But he acknowledges that there is a very small core of die hard extremists who are sworn to destroy us, who probably at this point number in the small tens of thousands world wide, who we may not be able to have any constructive dialog with, who we will need to contain and may need to combat. By that standard there could be some in Iran, the hardest of their hardliners, who in the short term at least we may need to "contain" by minimizing their influence by working around them with others who are more flexible, including some who now are in the hard liners grouping. In a sense that is ultimately the strategy that was pursued with the P.L.O. under Arafat when the U.S. recognized it as the legitimate voice of the Palestinian people. So there is a matter of definition. At one time the P.L.O. was written off as composed of hard liners, later that view became more nuanced and factions within it were dealt with differently.

Donna you know that it frustrates me that Clark is not running in his own right for President. Clinton is not on his campaign staff; he can't fire her or discipline her when some of her words or actions possibly send the wrong message. Many activists on this board and elsewhere hope that Clinton does not win the Democratic nomination. She is certainly not my first choice on the issues, but clearly there is a high liklyhood that she will win the nomination. If so I hope she is influenced to say and do the right things to the greatest extent possible. I am glad to see Clark speak out here with such simple clarity about Iran. He is one of the people many of us are going to need to count on to be a positive influence on American foreign policy if Hilary Clinton does get elected.

[BootinUp]

51. Empowering hardliners

When there is an international standoff over issues like nuclear technology, and state sponsored terrorism it is a common tactic to isolate the bad actor in hopes that it will make them more willing to change behavior. It is not only the US that is demanding changes in Irans nuclear program for instance. And those demands have not been met with any real concessions. I would also suggest that the internal politics in Iran are not as well understood as you would suggest, and it is going to be difficult to achieve any changes in Iran's behavior without increasing pressure.

What Bush does with this diplomatic pressure is yet to be seen. But the administration seems to be making efforts to downplay the idea they are preparing for attacks, and playing up diplomacy efforts from where I sit. If there is to be no increased sanctions, if the left opposes that, then it gives the US and Israeli hardliners an opening to push for more extreme measures since we are not pushing for an alternative.

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. About sanctions

"Unfortunately, the Administration seems to believe it only has sticks. They have continued their saber-rattling, and without diplomacy, the announced sanctions only serve to escalate the tensions between the U.S. and Iran."

Honestly Jim, I am afraid that the Bush Administration is out to prove that "diplomacy didn't work" because they essentially define diplomacy as diplomatic efforts aimed at getting more nations to impose sanctions on Iran. By that definition of "diplomacy", when sanctions fail to bring about the results they want, then they can say that diplomacy failed. I do see your point but the gist of what I read in Clark's letter is that the U.S. is not doing "sticks and carrots" and we are not doing diplomacy. We are only doing sticks and we are demanding that Iran agree to our prerequisite demands before we will be willing to "talk with them". Perhaps if Bush saw imposing sanctions on Iran as a face saving alternative to attacking Iran while he is in office, then there could be some good in that if it helps us live to make peace another day.

I keep returning to the realization that this is an excellently crafted letter Clark sent out. Ir really does cover all of the bases.

[BootinUp]

53. I see it as a time extension

until we can get a sane administration in place.

[Tom Rinaldo]

54. Gotcha. Good point. I hope your read is correct. n/t

[Donna Zen]

56. Talk to them (Clark) Isolate some of them (Clinton)

My original post questioned the difference between the two messages. I agree with General Clark considering that the hardliners are in charge of the levers of Iranian power.

And then there is this from Juan Cole.

The sanctions may work but may not. The Dutch Shell corporation is thinking seriously of bucking the US and helping develop Iranian oil and gas production. China is negotiating a big deal with Iran. The world is energy hungry. Iran has energy. The US is a debtor nation, and has gone even more deeply into debt under Bush. It may just not be able to stand in the way of the development of Iranians energy.

snip....

That Iran is trying to destabilize the Shiite government in Baghdad is absurd. The Bush administration charge that Iran is the source of explosively formed projectiles is based on very little evidence and flies in the face of common sense; in fact these bombs are probably made in Iraq itself or perhaps come from Hizbullah in Lebanon.

The charges are frankly ridiculous, and certainly are so if proportionality is taken into account. That is, if one bomb was sold by an Iranian arms dealer to the Taliban for profit, a hundred bombs were given to the Taliban by Pakistan for tactical reasons. Likewise, the Shiite militias in Iraq have killed very few American troops when the US troops have left the Shiites alone; most attacks on the US come from Sunni Arabs.

The Senate Kyl-Lieberman resolution helped legitimize this new Bush policy, which is why the senators should not have voted for it. It took us one more step down the road to war with Iran.

Will the sanctions work...Cordesman sees them as a shot across the bow that might work. iirc, Cordesman thought that the Iraq War might work too. It is still in doubt that the the world will go along with the sanctions. The world needs Iranian oil, and with prices soaring, Iran is getting twice the dollars they were getting a year ago.

Some observations from Farideh Farhi

The need to keep tightening the sanctions noose arises from the ineffective nature of the sanctions regime. To counter the stated U.S. attempt to isolate it, but more importantly to assure its own security, Iran has pursued a very active strategy vis-à-vis its neighbors, with many which it has long and porous border...

Those who are pushing for more sanctions know this. They know that so long as neighbors such as the UAE and Turkey are unwilling to give up their lucrative business with Iran, the sanctions regime will not harm Iran enough to abandon its stance. They also know that given Iran’s long borders, the sanctions in place will be adjusted to in a short period of time. So for Iran to feel any kind of political heat the sanctions noose has to be tightened periodically.

This does not mean that sanctions do not harm Iran economically; they just don’t harm it enough. High oil prices and Iran’s relationship with neighbors give Iran sufficiently versatile tools in the cat and mouse game that is being played between the US and Iran. There is no doubt that the US is the physically more powerful cat in this game but the mouse, so to speak, simply has too many holes to hide in and is difficult to catch precisely because of the versatility of tools at its disposal.

The State and Treasury folks keep hoping that by doing something they will place pressure on Iran’s contested political environment, ultimately convincing those sectors of Iranian elite who are worried about Iran’s deteriorating economic conditions to step up to the plate and force a change in Iran’s policies regarding nuclear enrichment. This is nothing short of wishful thinking so long as the US offer of diplomatic engagement is based on the precondition of changed Iranian behavior and policies before talks begin.

When Khatami, the moderate, was elected he won 73% of the votes of the IRGC, a higher percentage than the moderates from the rest of the electorate. Recently a moderate nuclear negotiator was fired and replaced by a hardliner in response to Washington's moves.

My take: if we're lucky....really, really lucky... the Russains and Chinese will actually do the hard work of diplomacy and fix this mess.

And now I'll return to reading a little ditty, Beyond the Age of Petroleum.

[DemFemme]

25. Has he gotten Hillary to sign it yet? *crickets*

Oh no, that's right, she's just got done signing another blank check for war for Bush. :puke:

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. And how does working to stop Hillary from taking office in 2009...

...stop Bush from starting a war with Iran in 2008? There is no mention of any Democratic candidate in this email, do you have a problem with it? Same question that I asked another poster above: Would you rather this email not gone out?

Do you realize how crass you are being now to force all talk about stopping a war with Iran into the narrow confines of a Democratic primary fcampaign for President? You react negatively when the wrong thing is said about Iran but you react negatively when the right thing is said about Iran also. It's not Iran that you are reacting to at all, it is all about the contest for President. Do you mind if some of the rest of us try to do something constructive now besides get pissed at this or that Democrat for what they should have done differently?

[DemFemme]

34. Patronize much? This petition will do nothing to stop a war with Iran.

I don't suffer from cognitive dissonance. The messenger is as important as the message. For a strong supporter of Hillary's
Kyl-Lieberman vote to ask for signatures to stop a war with Iran is beyond flip-flopping. It's a good way to get signatures
for an emailing list, though.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. Nothing you have suggested "will do anything to stop a war with Iran"

You haven't suggested anything. Fundementally what do you think can stop a war with Iran, or are you taking the position that Bush won't listen to anyone and that he doesn't care what opposition there is because he will do what he wants regardless?

If you think the latter is true then the Kyle - Lieberman amendment that you are obviously so angry about doesn't mean a hill of beans, it could have lost and it wouldn't matter to Bush. Is that your position? Do you ever wonder why so many Democrats voted for K/L? I am sure there are exceptions, but I think many of those who did think that their constituents supported that position. Tell you what, I won't patronize with an assumption about you, but I know that many folks on DU would be shocked to realize how many Democrats out there sign on to a position that Iran is our enemy and we can't let them get nukes and we have to be tough with them to stop them.

I spent a lot of time off this site and away from liberal blogs trying to get signatures for this Stop Iran War petition that you now ridicule, LAST WINTER. We have been losing the propagada war on Iran for at least two years. We have been out organized by the right, and many of the people who we should be able to count on to stand up against this coming war have been seduced into thinking that Iran is run by a madman who we can't allow to get nukes. Sound familiar?

The only thing that will stop a war with Iran is if more mainstream Americans become more alarmed at the prospect of a war with Iran than they are over hyped up fears about the madmen in Tehran. It won't be Code Pink that single handedly stops a war with Iran. There is a reason why the overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress were silent about pending war with Iran, before the last two weeks when a few Presidential candidates finally started making concerned noises about Bush maybe taking us into the next war. They thought the politically smart thing to do was to sound tough against Iran.

The message in this email from Clark makes ideal sense for informing the public. You still have not found fault with what it says, right? Every petition drive has two target audiances. One is whoever it is addressed to, and this one goes to Congress as well as the President. The other target audiance is the folks who are approached to sign it. Petition drives inform the public being asked to participate about an issue before they inform elected officials about the views of that public. So how are you working to change public opinion and bring that changing opinion to bear on Congress?

And as to your comment "The messenger is as important as the message." I couldn't agree more. It is important to have someone with the military credentials of a Four Star General pushing the message that War is not the Answer, real diplomacy is. Should I presume you are aware of how long and hard Wes Clark has been speaking this message to the American people about Iran? I don't want to patronize you by assuming you are unaware of his long hard efforts in this regard. But if you need some links from the last few years to refresh your memory, let me know.

[DemFemme]

38. My suggestion: senators should listen to Sen. Jim Webb before voting on anything Liebermanesque

I agree with President Jimmy Carter, Gov. Mario Cuomo, John Dean, Seymour Hersch, Sidney Blumenthal, Senators
Webb, Biden, Bingaman, Boxer, Brown, Byrd, Cantwell, Dodd, Feingold, Hagel, Harkin, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, Klobuchar,
Leahy, Lincoln, Lugar, McCaskill, Sanders, Tester, and Wyden, who voted against the Amendment, believing that it gives
Bush the go-ahead to attack Iran.

I know that Wes Clark called IWR a "blank check" in 2004. Now the Kyl-Lieberman bill is fine because Hillary voted
for it? He's finally become a good politician.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. So how do we now get more Senators to support the Webb Amendment?

Or do you think that no longer matters?

[DemFemme]

42. The Webb amendment will never pass - Hillary's triangulated co-sponsorship is simply CYA

The Webb amendment wouldn't have been necessary had Hillary and the other Vichy Democrats
listened to Webb orginally and not voted for Joe Lieberman's bill.

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. So that puts you back at offering nothing constructive now again

I repeat the obvious; preventing Hillary from being the Democrat who takes office in 2009 does nothing to stop Bush in 2008. I'll stick with my stance that the framing of the issue of how to deal with Iran in this email is excellent for public outreach and I hope it is widely circulated.

[DemFemme]

44. Sorry, I didn't sign up for "Tom's Constructive Suggestion" class.

I repeat the obvious: this petition does nothing to stop a war with Iran but is a great way to collect email addys. The majority of Americans
don't want war with Iran according to present polling, so the need for "public outreach" is not terribly necessary.


In the meantime, I will continue to hold Hillary's feet to the fire.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Gee, I thought you might teach a class. You lecture well enough.

As to Hillary, did I suggest you not do whatever you want regarding her? I don't think so - you keep bringing her up, but all I said was that stopping her from getting nominated won't stop Bush from bombing Iran. Hold her feet to the fire all you want, I hope there's room at your fire for more feet than just hers.

In regards to the public; Of course they don't "want" war with Iran, but they also are afraid of Iran, irrationally so but often fear is not rational. Iran may or may not become a long term adversary of the U.S., depending in good part on whether the U.S. is willing to negotiate in good faith about the full range of issues that currently cause tensions between us, but Iran does not fundementally threaten our National Security under either scenario, or that of a nuclear armed Israel either. Iran has never acted irrationally beyond it's national borders. But the public fears Iran may attack Israel and/or maybe arm Islamic terrorists with nukes.

Framing counts for everything. If you flat our ask a large pool of people "should the United States attack Iran?" the answer would be a powerful "No". But if you ask them "Must Iran be prevented from getting nuclear weapons?" I supsect a solid majority would answer "Yes". An attack on Iran would be framed as action to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. All of the rest of it about Iran's actions inside Iraq etc. are meant to turn public opinion strongly against Iran in preparation for an attack on Iran. That won't be the excuse used. Nukes would be.

[DemFemme]

46. I could never hope to be as good as you at it.

As for framing, that's what the AIPAC-Kyl-Lieberman resolution was all about: switching the rationale for war with Iran. It's no longer
about Iran having nuclear weapons (which the IAEA report said would take years and for which Bush has zero evidence for), now
it's about Iranian terrorists. The war on terror lives on, thanks to Lieberman and his supporters in the Senate.

I'm tired of Vichy Democrats and their flip-flopping endorsers/enablers. I am sure Hillary will be the first to support any pre-emptive
war with Iran Bush starts in 2008, just as she did with Iraq. Can't be seen as weak on national security, right? Heaven help us.

[Auntie Bush]

36. You tell em Tom.

"Do you mind if some of the rest of us try to do something constructive now besides get pissed at this or that Democrat for what they should have done differently?"

[Inuca]

30. Do you know who this letter was sent to?

His own email list? Hillary's? Other? Just curious...

[calteacherguy]

32. I'm on Clark's email, and votevets. I know it was sent through votevets and Clark's site.

I don't know if it was sent through Hillary mail.

[calteacherguy]

31. I just received this in my email. Thanks for posting! K&R. nt

[MasonJar]

33. Please, Hillary, choose Wes Clark for your VP.

[Auntie Bush]

37. Oh God, how I wish she would. Then and only then will

I feel we are in the hast possible hands. Then I could almost relax and believe we will take our country back. Between Bill and Wes...Hillary will get the best possible advice available.

[moondust]

40. Seems obvious.

If the U.S. attacked Iran wouldn't Iran simply send vast numbers of troops across the border into Iraq to kill U.S. troops? :nuke:

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. That is one of their options. They have many

They can choke off much of the world's oil supply, they could have their allies in Iraq go on an offensive against American's for them - and Iran has LOTS of allies in Iraq. They can encourage Hamas and Hezbolah to step up attacks on Israel, they can actively support terrorists attacking America and American interests, etc. etc.

However there are some in this Administration who believe an all out war in the Middle East is inevitable so there is no point putting it off, a Democratic President might not have the will to act (so this line of thinking goes) and by the time it becomes clear to everyone that we have no choice other than to fight (for "our" oil supplies, to "save" Israel, to "defend Christian civilization", whatever) we will be in an even weaker position to do so than we are now. That's part of some neocon thinking.

[moondust]

48. This is why

impeachment should NEVER be taken "off the table" UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES! The threat of impeachment alone may provide sufficient leverage to ward off any impending insanity. I'm surprised Pelosi doesn't seem to understand that.