I hold General Clark's opinion in very high regard, but his op ed does not substantiate how asking Bush to designate the IRG a terrorist organization helps with diplomacy. I quote the NYT:
"But most of America’s partners in a big diplomatic effort to rein in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions don’t like the idea at all, arguing that it might hamstring any number of business ventures with Iran. In addition, some European diplomats argue that the move could further alienate the Iranian population."
Clark may have good intentions when he wrote the op ed to deflect the criticism directed at Ms. Clinton, but that is all the op ed does.
Posted by Prabhata at October 15, 2007 06:26 PMIt's called leverage. What's so hard to understand?
Posted by snark at October 15, 2007 06:44 PMDo you still hold him in high regard? He defended Gereral Petraeus's character, said he's an honest man, he tells the truth. General Clark has endorsed HC. Is he still held in high regard here?
Posted by peter at October 15, 2007 07:34 PMGeneral Wesley Clark, former Republican, endorsed H. Clinton already, has roots with the Clintons back in Arkansas... not exactly impartial.
But so what? What of Clark's points?
In voting for a non-binding resolution that urges the administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, she is forcing the Bush administration to apply diplomatic pressure.
Clark claims this resolution applies pressure on the Bush administration to pursue a diplomatic rather than military approach to Iran. That's nice. But what is the mechanism here that forces THIS administration into diplomacy?
Iran must not be allowed to build or acquire nuclear weapons. Neither must Iran be permitted to intervene with force, arms or terrorism inside Iraq.
(I know Clark was against the Iraq invasion). Gosh, IT WOULD BE A LOT EASIER FOR THE U.S. TO DEMAND THESE THINGS IF "WE" HADN'T INTERVENED WITH FORCE, ARMS OR TERRORISM INSIDE OF IRAQ. Also the continuation of the American occupation of Iraq has to affect the political dynamic within Iran, strengthening the hand of hardline Iranians, i.e. giving the hardliners "leverage" over the moderates in the question of the pursuit of nuclear weapons.
It's called leverage. What's so hard to understand?
Snark, I don't understand. It sounds like a "stick." Where is the "carrot" here. And are the European diplomats who are pissed about this just stupid?
There is nothing in the non-binding Kyl-Lieberman bill that would give President Bush any authority whatsoever to go to war.
Bush will use any symbolic thing like this as a fig-leaf... Perhaps what Clark is saying is technically true, but this is the Bush administration we're dealing with. This is not a normal administration that plays within certain rules of the game. These people are psychopaths. How else to explain the past 6+ years? Here Clark supports his statement by quoting Sen. Durbin. Somewhere else Sen. Durbin said he was assured by Robert Gates that the admin. wouldn't use this amendment as a pretense for war. Why do I not find that very assuring?
I applaud General Clark for speaking the language of diplomacy but if he is "so dismayed and disappointed about political attacks that misrepresent the senator's positions and betray a fundamental misunderstanding about how to conduct effective diplomacy" he needs to do a better job explaining this than he does here.
And General Clark should explain this apparent contradiction to us simpletons: Why did Senator Clinton earlier criticize Obama as irresponsible and naive for saying that he would be willing to have direct diplomacy with Iran? Just asking.
Posted by TrainWreck at October 15, 2007 08:41 PMI want Hillary to get serious on this ruinous war crap or just fuck the hell off.
You can step up to the times, girl. Or you can be a stupid pussy pol, and ultimately complicit in our national destruction.
I still want to hope, Hill. Silly me, maybe.
Posted by Sharkbabe at October 15, 2007 08:42 PMPeter, holding someone's opinion in high regard simply means that one will listen to what the person says. One hundred percent agreement is not necessary. George Will is a perfect example of someone I respect but disagree 99 times out of 100. Kristol I don't respect even if by chance I were to agree with him five times out of 100.
Posted by Prabhata at October 15, 2007 08:56 PM"...Clark claims this resolution applies pressure on the Bush administration to pursue a diplomatic rather than military approach to Iran...."
hmmmmm, didn't Hillary say she voted for the original Iraq resolution to force Bush into diplomacy?
no one should be surprised when Hillary attacks Iran
Clinton would use violence against Tehran
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/hillaryclinton/story/0%2C%2C2191830%2C00.html
Snark, I don't understand. It sounds like a "stick." Where is the "carrot" here.
You don't need a carrot to utilize leverage.
And are the European diplomats who are pissed about this just stupid?
Why do they have to be stupid to disagree?
You seem just to want to parse General Clark's words rather than looking at the entirety of what he (and Clinton) are saying.
Hillary Clinton is not going to attack Iran unless there is incontrovertable evidence that they are actually building nuclear weapons. And we are a long way from that.
Posted by snark at October 16, 2007 05:50 AMYou seem just to want to parse General Clark's words rather than looking at the entirety of what he (and Clinton) are saying.
No, I don't want to purse words. I just want to understand what it is they are saying... I'm actually asking...
And we still have 15 months of Bush running things. They never let a little thing like lack of incontrovertable evidence get in the way of a war.
Posted by TrainWreck at October 16, 2007 08:56 AMsnark: "...Hillary Clinton is not going to attack Iran unless there is incontrovertable evidence that they are actually building nuclear weapons...."
Because we're America and we can do whatever we want, whenever we want, and to whomever we want.
And NO, Iran does not pose a threat to us.
Posted by Gay Veteran at October 17, 2007 05:37 AMBecause we're America and we can do whatever we want, whenever we want, and to whomever we want.
Do you really believe that? Seems odd coming from you.
Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. If they are proven to be developing nuclear weapons (which they currently deny) they would be in violation of the NPT. And I'd imagine that the UN would sanction steps to prevent them from developing a working bomb.
And NO, Iran does not pose a threat to us.
Did I say they did?
Posted by snark at October 17, 2007 06:55 AMwell snark, if Iran does not pose a threat then why would Hillary attack them?
Posted by Gay Veteran at October 18, 2007 06:10 AMwell snark, if Iran does not pose a threat then why would Hillary attack them?
I don't believe she would. Here's what I said. Contrary to what the hysteria around here would suggest, namely, that Hillary already has her sights set on attacking Iran once in office, she would only attack Iran if there were incontrovertible evidence that Iran was building nuclear weapons. I expanded on that by saying that should it be proven that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, in violation of the NPT, that the UN would sanction actions to prevent that. Should that happen perhaps a President Hillary Clinton would involve the US in bombing targeted at destroying the Iranian nuclear program.
Clear enough?
Posted by snark at October 18, 2007 02:34 PMafter Hillary voted for Kyle-Lieberman she probably doesn't have to worry about her ordering an attack on Iran
Posted by Gay Veteran at October 19, 2007 05:00 AMafter Hillary voted for Kyle-Lieberman she probably doesn't have to worry about her ordering an attack on Iran
And you're the one who likes to call people "pants pisser"?
Posted by snark at October 19, 2007 06:15 AM