Wesley Clark Favors A Massive Strike On Iranian Targets

[cali]

That's what Cirincione, the director of the non-proliferation project at the Carnegie Endowment For Peace, just said on C-SPAN. He said that Clark advocated this on Fox News. He also asserted that many dems are trying to get to the right of repubs on the Iran issue. This is both depressing and frightening. I don't mean to upset the Clark fans here, but this deserves to be widely known.

[Mass]

1. Not a Clark fan, but can you point us to where Clark would have said that

[leftchick]

9. Mr. Cirincione said clark was on fox news last week

talking about multiple strikes all over Iran. :(

[cali]

11. Thanks, Leftchick

I was beginning to wonder if I really heard Ciricincione say it.

[capi888]

12. I have all Wes's talks on Fox taped.

He did NOT say that, it was taken out by spin! Period!!!! Read post below, its his actual words.

[OKNancy]

17. Yes, but just because

Cirincione said it doesn't make it true.

[Mass]

18. False -- Here is the transcript - Exactly what I thought it was.

Note that, while he is answering a question about what would be the tactic for such a strike, he does not endorse it. He is there as a military expert and describes what such an operation would be. It is totally disingenuous to say he supports it.

http://securingamerica.com/node/856

[Coexist]

2. That is just not true.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/30/221916/857
<snip>
"He also referred to the "misguided idea from the 1990's that uncooperative Middle East regimes could be "cleaned up" by American military action."
But the points where he went into a good deal of specifics were in calling for a dialogue with Syria and Iran, both in terms of opening direct U.S. talks with Iran as soon as possible on their nuclear program (something I think we should have been doing long before now), and in terms of involving both Iran and Syria in a wider regional security dialogue:


Today, Syria presents an historic opportunity for the United States. Rather than just threatening Syria, we should talk directly to Bashir Assad, encouraging him to lay the foundations for economic and political opening and gradual transformation, cut off insurgent access through Syria into Iraq, and end the sponsorship of Iranian-backed terrorist institutions, in return for stabilizing his administration during the ongoing UN investigations.

And this in turn, will give us greater traction against Iran's steady march toward nuclear weaponry. But actions on Iran are urgent. We should join now - right now - in opening a new round of talks with Iran, in which we ourselves participate, before pressing for UN action or moving toward the military option. No one should be mistaken: there is a military option. We can strike hard enough to set back Iran's nuclear quest by many years, and take out much of their military capacity in the process. And we can at the same time protect most of the oil flow from Iran and deny their capacity to block transit through the Straits of Hormuz. But we also must recognize the possible consequences of this action: an embittered, vengeful Iran, seeking further destabilization of the region. Far better to pursue dialogue now, whatever the precedents, and save the military option for truly last resort. Understand: unlike others you may hear, I know when and how to determine our course with Iran.

I completely agree -- and I'm impressed that someone who clearly has presidential aspirations is willing to come out and advocate a sound strategy, rather than merely saying whatever one thinks is good in terms of domestic political calculations -- as Hillary Clinton has been doing recently in trying to out-hawk the Bush administration on Iran. That sort of rational strategic thinking is exactly what we need -- not opposing the "bomb them now and get it over with" chorus on pacifist grounds, or sticking our heads in the sand and imagining that Iran's nuclear program is completely peaceful, but thinking rationally about how we encourage them to back down, before contemplating military action, which wouldn't be likely to completely destroy Iran's program, and would likely lead to an embittered and eventually nuclear-armed Iran."

[harlinchi]

21. Thank you. I feel a little better. The post's title caused a little...

...uh, unease on my part. It does my heart good to hear intelligent words from our democratic presidential aspirants. I like this:


Far better to pursue dialogue now, whatever the precedents, and save the military option for truly last resort. Understand: unlike others you may hear, I know when and how to determine our course with Iran.

[benburch]

3. Cite your sources, or retract. nt

[cali]

6. I just cited my source.

Cirincione just said it on C-SPAN. I'll try and find some other source, but please remember, I'm not making this claim, Joseph Cirincione is.

[Avalux]

10. Is the word "favor" yours or his? n/t

[cali]

15. I'm not sure n/t

[rodeodance]

16. I heard Jim C. say that also.

[Mass]

20. There is a difference between what Clark said and what

Jim C. apparently said.

Clark, thru the transcript I posted lower, does not advocate such a strike.

He explains, as a military expert, that if such a strike was to be made, it would be the best military action.

[benburch]

26. Repeating slander is slander too. nt

[capi888]

4. That is not TRUE

Wes Clark, has said repeatedly, that we NEED to talk and negotiate with the Iranians. You didn't upset me, because I know the truth. These are talking heads, that are scared of Wes Clark. He is against military strikes, only as last, last resort. He has said that over and over. Wes Clark is for diplomacy first and said, it has been the Bush administration policy to strike FIRST. If you listen to his words, and not those who mis character and twist his words, you wouldn't be concerned!

[Crazy Dave]

5. A pro-war, preemptive strike type democrat huh?

Dem polititicians, puke politicians, what's the difference anymore except to keep us divided, bickering with and hating our fellow Americans.

Edit: Good points by others. Where's the source? I've been favoring and Edwards/Clark ticket and these are things I'd like to know too.

[OKNancy]

7. I seriously doubt that

Clark has always said in the past that diplomacy is the way to go with Iran.
He has said Iran is a threat, but so has every other Democratic politician.

Who said this in Congress? :
Snips:

The international community must take concerted and decisive action to prevent Iran from furthering its nuclear research and technology development.

The Security Council specifically, and the international community generally, must recognize the potentially devastating link between the violent and defiant rhetoric of Iran’s president and his regime’s determined effort to undermine approved and transparent methods of developing civilian nuclear technology for energy use.


A nuclear-armed Iran would pose a grave threat to the region, to Israel, and to the entire international community

[Avalux]

8. No he doesn't. Democracy first, always.

Clark is a former General and has discussed the possibilities of military action against Iran; how it could be done. That doesn't mean he "favors" it. Clark:

"And this in turn, will give us greater traction against Iran's steady march toward nuclear weaponry. But actions on Iran are urgent. We should join now - right now - in opening a new round of talks with Iran, in which we ourselves participate, before pressing for UN action or moving toward the military option. No one should be mistaken: there is a military option. We can strike hard enough to set back Iran's nuclear quest by many years, and take out much of their military capacity in the process. And we can at the same time protect most of the oil flow from Iran and deny their capacity to block transit through the Straits of Hormuz. But we also must recognize the possible consequences of this action: an embittered, vengeful Iran, seeking further destabilization of the region. Far better to pursue dialogue now, whatever the precedents, and save the military option for truly last resort. Understand: unlike others you may hear, I know when and how to determine our course with Iran."

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/30/221916/857

[rodeodance]

13. this does not surprize as he thinks the miliatary needs to improve its

image after this beating in Irag.

[Mass]

25. Dont fall in the trap - Jim C. is taking Clark's words out of context.

[INdemo]

14. No truth in this statement whatsoever... so to best emphazize

not true...This is "BULLSHIT"

[Mass]

19. Clark did not say that - hereis the transcript - Exactly what I thought

Note that, while he is answering a question about what would be the tactic for such a strike, he does not endorse it. He is there as a military expert and describes what such an operation would be. It is totally disingenuous to say he supports it.

http://securingamerica.com/node/856

There is a difference between explaining what the best military option would be if such an action had to happen and advocating it.

[trillian]

22. Big fat lie!

Clark has never been for a strike on Iran. In fact just the opposite.

[0007]

23. Argh!!

[QC]

24. As Mark Twain once said,

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.”

[bowens43]

27. Doesn't surprise me in the least.

Clark will bend which ever way the wind blows. We saw that when he went from almost worship like support of the administration to knocking them after they gave him the cold shoulder. Clark, a man who spent 30 years of his life planing military solutions to political problems has no place in a civilian government. Clark will do or say what ever he thinks will lead to him being in the oval office.

Luckily, as evidenced by his overwhelming defeat in the 2004 primaries, the base sees right through him.

[Skinner]

28. Locking

The person who started the thread has explained the post and apologized:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=912416&mesg_id=912416