RAPID FIRE - Silver Bullets

Here's a hint of the "Good" that comes later in this post:

Wes Clark quoted while talking to Sean "Gaston" Hannity,

"If we could change people’s mind without using the military, we’ll all be a lot more secure"

Now for the Bad and the Ugly......

The way that the news would tell it, Iran is currently Public Enemy #1 --in front of Al Qeada and certainly before Osama Bin Waldo.

The Presidential '08 hopefuls, by a margin of too many, appear eager to play cowboy a la George Bush! We are hearing lotsa bravado, slogan filled "Bushisms" formulated while on the campaign trail or in smoky conference rooms filled with Neocons luminaries.

"Bring them on" has been replaced with "We will not tolerate under any circumstances", and "Make our Day" by "all options are on the table", more often said twice in succession for added emphasis and effect.

Unfortunately, none of these 2008 wannabes learned the hard lessons of Vietnam (nearly none went, and so I see why) and all naively supported the Iraq invasion (of course some said sorry 3 year late(r), so it's not surprising when some of the "usual" suspects are back talking the same Bushit, but being careful to replace Iraq with Iran. Some of these candidates are quite expected, while others are quite clueless.

As Iran is a "work in progress" as far as our foreign policy is concerned, it is a fluid issue sorta, kinda. Iran admittedly is a more serious matter than Iraq could have ever hoped to be, but then we've been sticking a stick to Iran's sides for the past 5 years. Being named part of the Axis of Evil doesn't exactly bring out the best in one's behavior, I'm afraid.

So how do we handle Iran? Do we threaten, cajole, bluster, or do sanctions a la Iraq? What exactly are the steps to be taken in order to keep Iran in a place acceptable to the United States and most of the world?

In otherwords, what's the Iran plan?

Sure, the candidates will tell you all that is wrong with Iran; they are evil and Ahmedinejad, untrustworthy. The candidates will firmly insist that the military options and all other possibilities remain on the table, while slamming a hand to the table. But what does that really mean? Tell us something that we don't know! How is the table set? Which china pattern will we be using? Will any other country help us decide? Is there both a steak and butter knife laid out, and is the tablespoon included?

The truth is that hard questions must be asked by Americans in reference to any action regarding Iran. Where should we place the emphasis? Will it be diplomacy, punitive sanctions, or will it be "Shock and Awe" all the way baby?

What are plans A, B, C, D, etc...?

What if the worse should happen, and we end up in a military confrontation with Iran; What would it look like, and what would it achieve? Would it solve anything? And what about the rest of the world; how would they react? Russia, China, Europe, Moderate ME countries?

Now, please don't ask the cowboy candidates any of these questions, because it clearly appears that they haven't really thought it out quite that far! The photo op calendar is packed, and it's hard for a Politician out there on the trail!

Well rest assured, the "Good" General is on his j-o-b once again--The man's worth a million and not paid a cent! Not only has Wes Clark thought through this issue of Iran more deeply than all of the candidates combined, he's made reasoned comments in public venues consistently and constantly. Gen. Clark always understood that Iran could be a threat, and knew too well that the U.S. going into Iraq wasn't gonna help us win a popularity contest as far as Iran was concerned.

The difference between a real Foreign Policy statesman and diplomat and an Attack Hawk politician is that one, if armed, is extremely dangerous.

If you want to sleep well at night, then thus far and unfortunately, General Clark in charge is the only one that will allow it.

**THIS POST WILL BE KEPT UPDATED AS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS GATHERED**

Below are some of Wes Clark's words on Iran via interviews and such:

"Last September at a conference I helped organize, General Wesley Clark began the drumbeat calling for direct contact with Iran. "--Steve Clemons.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29624

February 5, 2006
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well that's the problem with the military option. It's that once we take action, Ahmedinejad probably becomes stronger domestically. There's no assurance that you can get regime change and the historical record of countries that have been bombed suggests that when you bomb a country, normally people rally around the leader. In this case, it would be most unfortunate, but it could happen.

And after we had set back their nuclear program by taking out a number of sites, there's no reason to think that AQ Khan in Pakistan and his cohort couldn't provide them the additional information, that some other nation might not have an incentive to smuggle in highly enriched uranium.

They could be back where we started much sooner than if they rebuilt the program entirely on their own. So that's the risk of the military option - leaving an embittered, angered Iran which is determined to seek revenge and get it.

For a complete run down of Clark's Iran approach to date, go here!

Heck of long and fascisnating. One cannot say that Wes Clark is at a loss for words when it comes to what he feels must be done in reference to Iran!

Sure beats being a cheerleader for saber rattling like some announced candidates have been pursuing! There will be a contest held tonight; maybe to see who can rattle the loudest?

......Meanwhile, back at the ranch called Washington D.C., looks like the congress have their hands tied....kinda, sorta! The Faux Cowboy President has congress penned and ready for the preliminary rodeo!

Even as the panel discussed issues from past conflicts, Senator Kennedy used the session to focus on a possible future conflict, asking the panel about what authority Mr. Bush would have to attack Iran. The panel’s members agreed that he had the power to take what actions he saw fit to deal with any short-term threat that Iran might pose to American troops in Iraq, but that he would need some form of Congressional authorization to begin any large-scale or long-term conflict. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/washington/30cnd-congress.html

More on Wes and Iran at zaczaca' Blog!

An article by New York Sun proves that Goldberg is wrong in his latest column; The N.Y. Sun says some New York Money People are buying influence from Democratic Politicians; and Iran has everything to do with everything! The Forward and the Associated Press also confirms this

If you've read the Goldberg "opinion", know that Jonah Golberg's column of wrongness is syndicated....meaning it will be fanned across the nation and perpetuates nothing more than a lie. When you google, one can see where it is going; to every right leaning publication in the nation, and I guess the L.A. Times (they sure are a changin').

The N.Y. Sun published an article on Feb 1st which negates Goldberg's nasty column out to slam Wes Clark and Matthew Yglesias, in where he states that neither Clark nor Yglesias have proven that there is a connection between AIPAC, New York Contributions, and the Iran Stance taken by some Dem and GOP politicians.

"there is zero evidence to back up Yglesias' statement that "major Jewish organizations are pushing the country into war" with Iran."

The sentences below are taken directly from the New York Sun and negates Goldberg's assertions by making statements very matter of fact: http://www.nysun.com/article/47843 (see page 2)

"New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community," he said. "If you're running for president and you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you're interested in the issue that matters most to them."

Mrs. Clinton, who has opted out of the public campaign financing system, has tapped into the circuit of influential Jewish donors for years and has strong support in the community. A spokesman for Aipac, Joshua Block, said yesterday that the senator and former first lady has "an extremely consistent and strong record of support on issues that are important to the pro- Israel community.

Indeed, how to deal with Iran is likely to be the next majority foreign policy conundrum the 2008 presidential candidates face. While Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton have different positions on how to deal with the Iraq war, each has used harsh language on Iran.

The Neoconservative N.Y. Sun is very explicit in confirming connections that Mr. Goldberg maintain don't exist, (and certainly the N.Y. Sun says much more than anything Gen. Clark or Matthew Yglesias might have ever said which has been exaggerated to an absurd degree by the hate merchants passing the story from one to another). In fact, the N.Y. Sun leaves nothing to the imagination.

Someone needs to point this out to Mr. Goldberg's editors ASAP, because it appears that they are paying good money for trash liners. The New York Sun is a Neoconservative publication, and so if Wes Clark can have the ADL come after him, and the Republican Jewish Coalition take out an ad asking for an apology from Wes http://www.rjchq.org/News.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=1204 , then the N.Y. Sun should be boycotted by ADL, RJC and everyone in between, OR it means that saying "Money People" is only harmful to those the media determines that it should harm.

So are Republican leaning publications like the New York SUN also Anti-Semite? Or is there is a double standard and this snowball rolling down the mountain towards Wes is nothing more than a smear campaign being ignited by the "Hate" merchants who are eager to sell anti-semitism at any price to quiet critics who speak against our march to war against Iran?

Here's a sharp analysis of my point written by Glenn Greenwald.... exposing the hypocrisy specifically of Wes' treatment: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/enforced-orthodoxies-and-iran.html

In addition, Goldberg and other distractors do not ever point out that the ADL accepted Wes' explanation, nor do they mention the letter that states this. http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=6382

Meanwhile, the New York Sun--hardly a hotbed of anti-Semitism--recently reported that leading Democratic presidential contenders have been reluctant to speak out against war with Iran for fear of angering "pro-Israel" lobbying groups in New York (even though the vast majority of Jewish-Americans don't appear to favor such a war). According to the New York Post, Hillary Clinton "drew grumbles" at an AIPAC dinner "when she encouraged 'engaging' with Iran before taking stronger action to keep it nuke-free." Of course, Wes Clark and Matt Yglesias were accused of anti-Semitism and compared to Charles Lindbergh when they pointed out this state of affairs. I wonder if the Sun will get the same treatment...

I'm also curious to know why it's always and everywhere considered "pro-Israel" to support military strikes that won't, in all likelihood, destroy Iran's nuclear program, but will, in all likelihood, destroy international support for sanctions on the country, entrench the more radical factions in Tehran, and make future conflicts in the Middle East more, rather than less, likely. As if opponents of such a thing are "anti-Israel.")
http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=77751

and linking to the above is this:

Also see item by Jewschool-

The Jewschool weights with some details on the ongoing debate. The one that Goldberg believes there is no evidence of whatsoever!

by Mobius

February 5th, 2007

The AP reports:

Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel’s greatest threats, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that “no option can be taken off the table” when dealing with that nation. “U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,” Clinton told a crowd of Israel supporters. “In dealing with this threat … no option can be taken off the table.”

"Clinton, D-N.Y., spoke at a Manhattan dinner held by the nation's largest pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee."

And The Forward:

While Jewish communal leaders focus most of their current lobbying efforts on pressing the United States to take a tough line against Iran and its nuclear program, some are privately voicing fears that they will be accused of driving America into a war with the regime in Tehran. […] In warning of possible scapegoating, insiders point to the experience of the Iraq War. Since the initial invasion in 2003, antiwar groups have charged, with growing vehemence, that the war was promoted by Jewish groups acting in Israel’s interest — even though the invasion enjoyed bipartisan backing and popular support, and was not at the top of most Jewish organizations’ agendas. The Iraq backlash prompted former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon to order in 2005 that his ministers keep a low profile on Iran. Now, however, Jewish groups are indeed playing a lead role in pressing for a hard line on Iran.

read more here

A comment I picked up online tells it better than I do!
Submitted by Nick Kelly on February 5, 2007 - 10:25pm.

"That quote in The Sun is attributed to"...a former Clinton Democratic political consultant who worked on President Clinton's re-election campaign, Hank Sheinkopf, noted that the Aipac dinner always draws a parade of politicians.

"New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community," he said. "If you're running for president and you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you're interested in the issue that matters most to them."

http://www.nysun.com/article/47843?page_no=2

I googled Mr. Sheinkopf. I suppose those who know him will consider it an understatement to observe that it doesn't appear likely that he is an anti-semite.
So, the substance of what Wes said is now confirmed by a very knowledgeable source who is not likely to be anti-semitic, and Wes was previously said not to be anti-semitic himself by none other than Abe Foxman, the President of the anti-defamation league.

Therefore, all the articles, newspapers and blogs that are insinuating that Wes Clark is anti-semitic are --- I do hope Jonah Goldberg won't mind me borrowing his expression --- "blowhards"-Nick Kelly

Interestesting debate here.

So here's your chance to walk point for the General Write multiple letters to the Editors for each google hit you find Contact info of some of the Hate Merchants selling politics of personal destruction

Rosner - rosner@haaretz.co.il

Goldberg - JonahNRO@aol.com

National Review LTE - letters@nationalreview.com

L.A. Times - letters@latimes.com

Salt Lake Tribune - letters@sltrib.com

We need letters to go out NOW in response to the Goldberg column!

SO LET'S DROP WHAT WE ARE DOING, LET'S GET SETTLED IN , AND LET'S WALK POINTS FOR THE GENERAL - I BELIEVE THAT HE DESERVES IT -

DEBATE IS DEMOCRATIC, DISSENT IS PATRIOTIC AND SILENCE IS BETRAYAL!

According to Maxine Waters on Hardball today, Wes Clark has been warning the Congress on Bush's push towards Iran for some time.

Watch the video
30 Second Advertisement shows first.
Maxine Waters comes on at 7:17
Talks about Iran and Wes at 8:00.

Love that Maxine! She's a stand up Representative, part of the Black Congressional Caucus, progressive as heck, and discusses with Chris Matthews in direct terms what she thinks on the issues of Iraq and Iran.

General Wes Clark, a highly trained strategist and a potential Democratic presidential candidate for 2008, writes that the current President is fighting a political war on two fronts right here at home; Bush is seeking to get his Iraq surge on, and at the same time "ratcheting up the pressure on Iran".

The General lists the military and public relations build up against Iran and sums up Bush’s steps thus far:

"A second aircraft carrier battle group (with Newsweek reporting a third group likely to follow), Patriot missiles to protect our allies, arresting Iranian personnel in Iraq, releasing additional information about Iranian involvement, appointing a Navy Admiral to command forces in the region...."

Now I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen the footage of the "Iranian" weapons "found" in Iraq at least 10 times starting Sunday. Considering I barely watch television news, this certain footage has been seen by many more than enough times, leaving us to think, ok, we get the picture-- But do we really? I don't know if enough of us realize how reminiscent this is of the prior PR sales job so many bought into just a few short years ago. General Clark and I agree; it is absolutely the last thing we need now.

So why is the temperature being raised all of the sudden? And why does this have the feel of a 2002 deja vu?

Here's one answer as stated by the General, "I believe some in the Administration have seen this confrontation as inevitable - or have sought it - since late 2001. At that time a Pentagon general held up to me a Defense memorandum which he described as a five year road map to the conflict. But surely we have learned by now that, particularly in this region, force and the threats of force should be the last, last, last resort."

And According to Clark, "the President's recent actions give the US little additional leverage to engage and dissuade Iran, and, more than likely, simply accelerate a dangerous slide into war."

Well, I certainly have learned that force and threats will get us nowhere but mired into costly and deadly quicksand, something we are already caught up in. But has the administration learned this? Because to hear them talking, it doesn’t appear so, and this has been all the while General Clark has advocated this direct approach to diplomacy, long before it was ever suggested by a Baker Commission! Coincidently, It wasn't until yesterday that the President's finally made some casual cavalier pronouncements of feigned interest in "diplomacy", because in reality, the administration has consistently turned its nose up at the mere mention of talks, negotiations, discussion, or any other diplomatic suggestions. It is as though they are fearful of legitimizing the accurate notion that talks with Iran are way overdue.

And of that apparent lack of the President’s willingness to "engage"Iran, Clark asks:

But, 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? And, finally, if every effort should fail, before we take military action, don't we at least want the moral, legal and political "high ground" of knowing we did everything possible to avert it?"

Short answer; Doh.....Ye-ah!

So here’s my shorthanded advise to the Bush Administration:

• First stop the pitiful swaggering cowboy threats
• Then let the big mouths pundits and hardnosed tough guys and gals in congress know that they need to chill for a bit, because this is no game.
• Now, close your eyes, take a deep breath, and move your shoulders up and down slowly.
• Open your mouth and beg Wes Clark to accept the position to head a team of his own choosing to get the hard diplomacy done.
• Once Wes Clark & Co. smooths out the rough edges and gets a productive dialogue going, then let the political vultures swoop in to claim the ultimate credit.

Now that might be the smartest strategic move this President ever makes in his political life. Just don't hold your breath. Bush simply isn't that smart, and hasn't indicated that he is ready to choose peace over confrontation; quiet negotiations over loud bravado.

But very seriously, we really can't afford to wait till election 2008 before getting some kind of dialogue going with Iran. This diplomacy needs to happen now, before there’s some kind of "international" incident. But sadly, the way this Administration is building a case that Iran is the enemy (as though we needed anymore of those) is dangerous, frightening and simply unwise. Because as General Clark puts it, "wouldn't want to be branding people as enemies too soon. That was one of Bush's many mistakes. Iran is a nation we have many disagreements with...and that's why we should be discussing, not sabre rattling."

Because even having to think of waging more wars-- well.....that’s an insanity just too close for comfort.

PS. Want to know and learn more? Read Clark's entire relevant diary; the questions and the answers. Makes one wish Bush could at least figure out how to use the Internet(s)!

Also see:
"The Year of Iran": Can The People Be Fooled Twice?
INFO GALORE! Wes Clark on Iran In Clark's own words
IRAN and U.S. Politics - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Maxine WATERS on Hardball- Wes CLARK has been warning Congress on BUSH & IRAN
Clark vs the Neocons on Iran
Our Canary in a Neocon Coal Mine
General Clark blogging on Iran today

As General Wesley Clark was actively concerned about the needless deaths of thousands of innocent victims in Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo (the last which was prevented to great measure thanks to the General), Clark is equally deeply troubled about what is currently happening in Darfur.

This particular round of genocide isn't new. It has been going on for quite a few years now.

Wes Clark was one of the early leaders in bringing Darfur to the attention of Americans. Using his voice, well known for ringing the alarm bell on such matters, Wes Clark brought the problem to the forefront shortly after it came to a head. That was back in 2004. Certainly since, Darfur has become a cause celebre with celebrities such as George Clooney and Angelina Jolie bringing much needed attention to the cause of stopping the genocide in Darfur, Sudan.

Needless to say, General Wesley Clark, as usual, was ahead of the curve and in front of the times. Tragically, the genocide continues to this date.

Wes Clark advocates for swift intervention to the deaf ears of the Bush Administration. They say that they understand that Darfur is a pressing genocide, but they drag their feet. Clark recommends International humanitarian intervention via the UN and possibly NATO.

You can locate the articles and radio interviews that the General has done on the subject of Darfur dating back to 2004 through the present Here.

If you go here, you'll get a more fully sourced synopsis on Wes Clark's involvement in attempting to get Washington to respond to the terrible genocide as it was happening in Rwanda.

Rwanda.... On a more practical level, we need to see the provision of forces and resources on the ground that were so tragically lacking in Rwanda. Throughout the three months of slaughter, from April to June 1994, there were ample opportunities for a relatively small, well-trained force to intervene and stop genocide in its tracks. There were many proposals — not least from U.S. General Wesley Clark, who presented a plan for a small force to establish corridors of escape.

This article, referring to Wes Clark's frustration:

Throughout the '90s, he bridled at U.S. inaction, particularly in Rwanda, where rampaging Hutu militiamen murdered 800,000 Tutsi in 100 days. The response from Washington was worse than nothing: Secretary of State Warren Christopher urged a "full, orderly withdrawal" of U.N. peacekeepers, lest the United States be called upon to relieve the rump force, a prospect the Pentagon adamantly opposed. Clark, then Shalikashvili's policy director, was ashamed. He later observed to author Samantha Power, "The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene." In Waging Modern War, Clark implies that the military dishonored itself "when we stood by as nearly a million Africans were hacked to death."

and I'll sadly leave you with this excerpt from a 2003 Esquire interview with General Clark to echo in your hearts:

The United States, however, wouldn't invade Rwanda, although Clark pushed his mentor, General John Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to push for an intervention. Shalikashvili declined after Clark told him twenty thousand troops would be required, and as Clark says now, "I watched as we stood by as eight hundred thousand people were hacked to death by machete."

For those who long ago tuned out the Anna Nicole Smith tabloid case and/or the “much to do about nothing” Clinton and Obama fest, and are actively following what is going in reference to the President’s plans on what to do about Iran, there are some significant items being reported!

Apparently, according to the U.K. Telegraph, preparations are being made for Israel to launch air attacks on Iran. I don’t know if this is true, but I do know that it’s damn scary!

Meanwhile the Sunday Times is reporting that U.S. Generals are threatening to quit, if America attacks Iran.

In 2002, we, the people were late on the issue of preventing a war. The Iraq War Resolution passed in October; we didn't take to the streets by the thousands till way too late. Had we been galvanized in larger numbers prior to October, we could have made a difference. As it were, we didn't realize how terrible it would all turn out. Some even took years to "get it". Well now, we all should know.

Gen. Wes Clark took the lead on this long ago, and having someone up front who recognizes dangers before they become dangerous is the best kind of leader.

Like IndianaGreen, a poster on Democratic Underground, wisely remarked, “ When someone as level headed as Wes Clark pushes the alarm button about a war on Iran, he got my attention.”

Wes Clark and VoteVets.org’s new website http://www.stopiranwar.com/ has handy letter writing tools to write to your Congressional Representatives, and both the national and the local press. I utilized these tools to send many newspaper editors my thoughts on this Iran/boogeyman to bomb scenario that is being marketed to the American people. I can’t post my letters here just yet, because letters published elsewhere on the internet are normally rejected by staff members selecting letters to be printed. Guess they use “google”?

And so I hope that whomever is reading this has already sent their letter to Pres. Bush, their congressional members, and the media on this issue. It may be one of the most important thing you do. Don’t delay taking action, because timing is everything. The corporate media must cover this issue, and not just from the perspective of the administration.

And remember that the bottomline message has got to be that “War is not the Answer”.

RECOMMENDED READING:
Clark vs the Neocons on Iran
http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/2007/02/clark_vs_the_neocons_on_iran.html

War is NOT the answer: Israeli flyover plans?
http://www.awesclarkdemocrat.com/2007/02/war_is_not_the_answer.htm

WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER - We won't get fooled again
http://www.moderatingthemadness.com/2007/02/war_is_not_the_answer_we_wont.html

General Wes Clark: Fighting the War on Iran While Other Democrats Just Fight Each Other
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/general-wes-clark-fighti_b_41833.html

You can also listen to the Wes Clark's recent interview on Ed Schultz show here

and the excellent Bog Radio Interview with both Wes Clark and VoteVets.org's founder Jon Stoltz here.