Don't let anyone every tell you Edwards and Clark have similar views towards Iran...

[Clarkie1]

The Iranian president’s statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_kno...


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: He is one voice in Iran. That’s all.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2163

[Infinite Hope]

1. In terms of solutions for Iran, they both have the same policy however.

As does every Democrat I can think of who's running for president.

[Clarkie1]

2. Not at all!

Edwards is making the same mistake we made with Iraq. Clark sees the bigger, clear picture.

I have no doubt who would be quicker to wage war.

[Lerkfish]

4. also, Clark's statement leaves room for diplomacy

edwards does not. Its an ultimatum with an implicit threat.

[Clarkie1]

6. Exactly.

The difference in content, emphasis, and tone are significant and unmistakable. They clearly do not see the world the same way.

For my part, I believe it is Clark who has the clearer view.

[Lerkfish]

7. well, see I think this is the problem with the current climate

as you point out: content, emphasis and tone.

When you saber rattle (as current thinking condones), you only have two outcomes: War, or uneasy submission that eventually leads to war.

When you open a dialogue or defuse tensions, you have a multitude of possible outcomes.

[Clarkie1]

8. I agree completely. nt

[FrenchieCat]

10. Clark is looking way deeper than emphasizing that if we have to

we'll use a military solution.

Clark is making sure that we talk about what if we did end up getting to the military solution....what then?

Clark is saying that he highly doubts that a military solution would solve anything.

I haven't heard Edwards articulate what repeating "we have the military option on the table" is supposed to accomplish and I haven't heard him talk about any possible aftermath if the military option was used.

And there lies another BIG ass difference.

Foreign affairs and diplomacy is a lot about nuance, understanding the end game, and knowing how to get there in the best possible of ways.

My new favorite Quote from Clark was what he said to Hannity yesterday....

"If we could change people’s mind without using the military, we’ll all be a lot more secure." Wes Clark - 1/24/07

[still_one]

3. Unfortunately, Clark isn't running...

[Clarkie1]

5. He says he's more interested in effecting the policy now...

1/24/07

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think the, the record of recent campaigns is that people like to get in early. They like to get the donor base established. They like to hire the right staff and so forth. I really am, am not into that. I, I'm a, more of a policy person, Neil, and, and what I believe is that you, you have- running is about carrying a message to the American people, and I think when I ran last time, it was a little bit early, I- it was, for people to understand what a disaster the President's strategy in Iraq was.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2168

[still_one]

9. The media did not help either, and I have no doubt they will be pushing clinton and mccain

and pretend that no one elses ideas matter

[Clarkie1]

11. Oh, I don't think it's quite as gloomy as that.

There are always surprises.

[1932]

12. Read the last paragraph on p.130 Winning Modern Wars (2003) by Wes Clark

Clark says that Iran should be at the top of the list of states who threaten the US.

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1586482181&id=ck2pVSbYanYC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&ots=DG-QqYUVDb&dq=Wesley+Clark+Winning+Modern+Wars&sig=Ah-5K2X5oeNmf_lHaoJF510G6Rk#PPA130,M1

[Texas_Kat]

13. And yet he still advocates diplomacy above anything else

It should tell you a lot about the difference between someone who KNOWS statesmanship and someone who does not.

(Edited to remove any snarky comments about other candidates)

[1932]

16. I might have missed something

But I don't see where Clark says that anything should be taken off the table, and I don't see where Edwards says that anything (including diplomacy) should be taken off the table.

No American president or serious presidential candidate who is a Democrat is going to say that they think any tool, from diplomacy to military action, should be removed from the playbook.

JFK ran as a virulent anti-communist, but at the first chance to use the military against communism (bay of pigs) he refused to provide military support, and the second (the cuban missile crisis) he, alone in his cabinet, advocated diplomacy rather than attack.

[dogman]

24. It is how they set the table.

Nothing is off the table but Clark sets diplomacy up front. He talks down military action and sets it aside as the last resort. Edwards is out highlighting military response and leaving it as an equal option. Words have power and just as the GOP set the axis of evil out front and created an incentive for Iran and Syria to destabilize our chances for success, speaking of preemptive strikes to a neocon rally, Edwards sets the stage for confrontation. Chickenhawks are always willing to go to war with other people's lives at stake.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. It''s sensible to say that all options should be left on the table

But for one thing Edwards doesn't say that. He has taken one option, attempting to coexist with a nuclear Iran like we did with the Soviet Union, completely off of the table. My clear read on John Edward's comments is that he says under no circumstances can we allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. That is a hard edged position with no ambiguity, unless you can explain to me how it isn't. Given that John Edwards openly says that the use of military force against Iran to stop them from going nuclear DOES remain on the table, how can we add two plus two here any other way?

What I hear John Edwards saying is that all options for attempting to convince Iran not to pursue a nuclear program should remain on the table, including diplomacy. Failing that though he defaults to one and only one option, an attack on Iran.

Then there is the matter of where the buck stops, to once again quote old Harry. It's one thing to agree that options should be left on the table, but when push comes to shove the President decides which options to actively pursue and which to shove onto the back burner. The President decides what type deal to offer a potential adversary if any. The President decides what type stance the United States should take in diplomacy if diplomacy is even offered. That very much influences whether diplomacy can or can not succeed.

In 2002, when Congress was debating the IWR, George W. Bush also said that all options must remain on the table, and he included diplomacy in that group of options. But he never believed in diplomacy. Bush never was willing to consider specific diplomatic options, he ruled those out. So Bush could say that he favored diplomacy, and then make impossible diplomatic demands, but sure he never took diplomacy off the table, and theoretically he never took continuing to contain Iraq off the table as an alternative to attacking Iraq. Not initially he didn't, only when it came time to make hard choices. When the time comes to make hard choices most options suddenly are removed from the table. George W. Bush chose his option, and John Edwards unequivically backed the actual invasion of Iraq at the time and for many months, if not years, after.

So it is not enough for me to hear a Democrat who seeks to be President say that "all options must remain on the table". That is too easy, any semi competent leader would say that. But that by itself it gives me little insight into which option that person ultimately will choose if they become President, and after all that really is the bottom line. A President will make a choice. So I also look to see who a person tends to allign with on an important issue. In 2002 most Democratic activists knew who had George Bush's ear on Iraq. We knew all about the neocons standing behind him. That is precisely why we didn't trust George Bush when he said he was committed to finding a peaceful solution in Iraq, when he said that option remained on the table.

And I also look to see where the overall thrust of a persons comments and concerns tend to lead toward on a critical issue. I can show you videos of Wes Clark arguing with Bill O'Reilly that the United States can pursue a different policy toward Iran, that we can coexist with them like we did with the Soviet Union, that we can work over years to influence Iran culturally, like we did with the Soviet Union, and that we can possibly contain a threat from Iran. I can show you videos of Wes Clark describing how dangerous it can be long term if the United States attacks Iran, how it can lead to entrenched hostilities that can spread throughout the Islamic world. I can show you Clark making the case for why an attack on Iran ultimately may not work out in our interests, although he of course agrees that we can "set Iran back" short term if we do.

To date I haven't seen John Edwards go out on much of a limb to argue for Peace with Iran. I've seen him favor direct diplomacy with Iran, and I appreciate that. But in the full context of all of his comments, that doesn't reassure me as much as I would like it to.

[FrenchieCat]

14. I don't believe that Clark has ever said that Iran was our best friend.....

Here's what Clark says on Page 130. This is when he was visiting the Pentagon and someone working there told him about what turned out to be the PNAC plan......

" This was being discussed as a part of a five year campaign plan he said, and there were a total of seven countries beginning with Iraq, then syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. So, I thought, this is what they mean when they talk about "Draining the Swamp". It was further evidence of the "Cold War" approach: Terrorism must have a "state sponsor", and it would be more efffective to attack each state--with complete confidence that it can be taken down. Than to chase after individuals, nebulous organizations, and shadowy associations.....

What a mistake I reflected--as though terrorism were simply coming from these states! Well, that might be true for Iran, which still supported Hezbollah, and Syria, complicit in aiding Hamas and Hezbollah. But neither Hezbollah nor Hamas were targeting Americans. why not build international power against Al Qaeda? But if we prioritized the threat against us from any states, surely Iran would be at the top of the list, with ongoing chemical and biological warfare programs, clear nuclear aspirations, and an organized global terrorist arm.
----
Clark as usual was 100% correct.....he was questioning why go after states in order to stop terrorism, when terrorism is committed by individuals and organizations. He is saying that the problem with this administration (and why his book was called winning modern Wars) is their old way of approaching new problems in geopolitics.

However, this doesn't show that Wes ever believed that because a country was a threat, we should walk around threatening with bravado and our cowboy boots and hat on....which is exactly the discussion that is going on here. Sorry you didn't pick up on what the theme of what this thread was about. :shrug:

Of course Iran is a threat.....and has been.....and of course more than Iraq...and? :shrug:

But what I'm most amazed about is you 1932. Edwards is totally sabber rattling as of two days ago in front of an Israelite warmongering highly specialized audience as an invited guest (along with Romney and McCain)....and yet you seem to have no problems with this and yet you tell us to read a page in Clark's 4 year old book? Frankly, it would seem that what Edwards just said two days ago should be of interest to you, no? To me, that's really odd. Cause on the one hand, your political philosophy seems to be anti corportarist and anti imperialism when you are dealing with Clark, but when we are discussing Edwards, none of this is important to you any longer....or is it just ok to be a corporatist warmonger if you've got youthful good looks and a great chin?

There were no other Democratic candidates participating in this "event"....but two other Republicans. So is Edwards being groomed to be able to bring 4 more years of another war to the U.S. or what?

[1932]

15. Clark said that Iran is at the top of the list of threats to the US in that book.

The quote in the OP shows Edwards saying that Iran is a threat that should be taken seriously.

I don't see how they've said anything different.

And I don't see why you think it matters that this book is four years old. Are you saying that Clark would think something else today?

[FrenchieCat]

28. Nope...I am saying that stating a fact is not the point that we were discussing....

I am stating that how the issue is handled and communicated about is what is important.

I guess the whole point might deal with more nuance than you are willing to see....understandibly that may be why you support whom you do.....because apparently, John Edwards ain't doing Nuance these days...and saying nothing more than what is already known... and doing it in a bellicose way.

In other words, Edwards is stating what we already know and being Hawkish about it, instead of discussing what we don't know and offering a thoughfull innovative approach. That's what I would want from my President....and I don't see him having the depth of knowledge it takes to articulate something different than what the status quo willing to saber rattle is doing. In other words, its the same ol' same ol'.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. "The same ol' same ol'"

Is deadly. We've been down this road before.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Three. You left out Newt Gingrich

He is also said to be considering a run for the Republican nomination in 2008.

[geek tragedy]

17. Edwards is talking about Iran like he talked about Iraq

His current "get out of Iraq now" stance is 100% pandering. The man changes his views on foreign policy as the poll numbers shift.

He was a cheerleader for the Iraq war, and now he's ginning up the same bullshit machine for Iran.

He's got some fine things to say about domestic politics, but he's unacceptable in terms of foreign and defense policy.

[flpoljunkie]

19. I tend to agree. His positions on Iraq appear to be a pander to the Dem base.

[geek tragedy]

20. He co-sponsored the IWR, and then

when Howard Dean began to pull away in the primary contest, he all of a sudden voted against the $87 Billion.

In September 2002, he called for the US to invade Iraq. Not to use diplomacy to enforce UN resolutions, mind you, but for regime change.

In October 2003, he said that Bush was right to invade Iraq without the support of the UN or our allies. He also said that the WMD issue and the SOTU remarks about Niger didn't really matter to his vote for the IWR--it was rather that Saddam was pursuing a nuke program.

In October 2004, he said he still would have voted for the IWR if he knew there we wouldn't find any WMD.

In October 2005, he pretended to take responsibility because he made a mistake in trusting George W. Bush. That's the only mistake he's willing to admit.

A Neo-con in dove's feathers.

[flpoljunkie]

21. Interesting. Hillary said the same thing recently about making a mistake in trusting Bush.

[Lerkfish]

22. yesm, that IS interesting. I find it hard to believe that any congresscritter

could not see what was patently obvious to all of us, that this was an unnecessary preemptive war of naked aggression.
They based their decisions on the political reality of the moment. On the one hand, I sort of understand that, from a purely mercenary standpoint, but on the other hand, they are hired to work for us, not their own reelection campaigns.

[geek tragedy]

23. Who is the real John Edwards? I'm not sure

we can predict what he will do apart from opinion polling.

[Texas_Kat]

26. And there is the reason in a nutshell

In the runup to the IWR, the consensus view was that Iraq had WMD. Clark argued (in front of both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees) that even if Iraq possessed some WMD, it was not sufficient to go to war over. That the best tactic was to let the inspectors continue to work.

Edwards, on the other hand, was easily convinced by the Bush administration that invading Iraq was not only necessary, but urgent.

A lot of people here talk about the importance of an electoral 'record'. They say the ability to examine someone's record is paramount. Well, when given an opportunity, Edwards failed the test. It looks (and sounds) like he did in 2002.

Look at it, it's all in the record.

[IA_Seth]

27. I agree with you...

It's all fine and well that he has finally admitted a mistake in trusting GWB, but that doesn't make it ok with me. If I endangered lives due to my mistakes in judgment, I would expect to pay a consequence...what will his be?

His policy can be predicted as the polls shift, that much should be obvious to anyone paying attention.