Comments on: Former Dem presidential contender Wesley Clark: We should ‘talk’ with Ahmadinejad

By: Gus

Gus — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 21:16:36 +0000

He’s not only not the only voice in Iraq, he is an obnoxious figurehead serving at the pleasure of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. I’m personally ambiguous about engaging Iran at this moment, as it seems that Ahmadinejad’s influence is on the wane, and reaching out to him may legitimize him. It seems to me that the other way to get the Iranian people to rally around him would be initiating a war.

By: dhonig

dhonig — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:19:00 +0000

This entry completely misrepresents what Clark said. Clark does not “believe[] that we could actually engage in a meaningful dialogue with this modern day version of Hitler.” Instead, he repeatedly, and quite pointedly, observed that Ahmedinejad is NOT the only person in Iraq, or even the personification of Iraq. Here is some of the interview:

Sean Hannity: I don’t believe you can change he mind of a madman like Ahmedinejad. I think that’s false hope.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I don’t think he’s the only guy in charge, Sean.

Sean Hannity: Well I think it’s false hope and naÃ¯ve.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think you’re making the same mistake we made with Saddam. I think you’re trying to personalize a country around a single person.

and there was more:

Sean Hannity: Do you really believe there’s even a smidgen of hope that the Holocaust denier, that the guy that threatens the US and Israel, do you really believe this madman is somebody that ultimately can be persuaded?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well I don’t think he’s the only…Sean, he’s not the only guy in Iran. I mean there are a lot of people in Iran who are…who really want to see a change in the situation in the region. We’ve got to reach around Ahmedinejad one way or another. We’ve got to show a different vision for the region. We’ve got to help those in Iran who want a different vision in the region come forward. That’s our obligation as the most powerful country in the world.

As Hannity refused to get the point, Clark repeated it again:

Sean Hannity: He’s their voice.

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

Ahmedinejad is not the only man in Iran, and he is not the only leader. While Iran is most certainly a terribly unpleasant, and anti-US, sort of place, it is not a dictatorship, and Ahmedinefad is not all-powerful. Hannity, and many here, insist of personifying Iran as him because it suits their purposes. But it is not only incorrect, it is intentionally misleading. This diary, too, is intentionally misleading, as Clark was repeatedly clear that he did not think the United States was required to talk to “that Holocaust denier,” but instead to approach Iran by other methods.

By: carsick

carsick — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:13:01 +0000

Saliant? Sorry, Salient. typos abound.
It’s been fun NC Cop. Gotta go.
Regards.

By: carsick

carsick — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:03:30 +0000

I know some of you see Senator Hagel as a turncoat or something but in the clip linked he makes a saliant argument about the role of debate over such important matters as war. Hang on 'til the end. LINK

By: iaintbacchus

iaintbacchus — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:57:46 +0000

Ahmadinejad is NOT a modern day Hitler. Hitler, like it or not, was a world leader. Germany, proir to WWII had colonies all over the world and a GNP greater than England or France.
I’m sure that Ahmadinejad would like to think of himself as a modern day Hitler. But what he is, is a fairly new president of a second rate regonal power with a population smaller than at least 2 of our states. He wouldn’t even have been elected to office in Iran if the clergy didn’t have final say on who gets to run.
Every since I can remember Arab leaders have gotten mad and talked vainglorious, overblown nonsense for the television and newspapers. Remember Gadhafi? Or for that matter the Iraqi public information minister who was still predicting victory as US troops were entering the studio he was brodcasting from? It’s what they do. That doesn’t mean that at some point they won’t sit down and bargain. You just have to remember that they will always start from as unreasonable position as they can in order to have more room to “compromise”.

By: carsick

carsick — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:47:15 +0000

Also, if Iran backs the Shia and Syria backs the Sunni then a completely destabilized Iraq will pull them into a regional religious war. And, as much as some of us would like to see them kill each other, I doubt Iran wants to go to war with Syria and I doubt our oil needs from the area will be served if the whole place goes up in flames. The Iranian leadership knows it is a fine line and that’s part of the reason they would like us (the US) to stay in Iraq. As a target and an excuse.

By: carsick

carsick — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:41:31 +0000

As I read that article, I read “intervention” as a democracy building attempt to reach the people. I did not read it as military action. If we do not engage at all we will end up deciding that our only solution is a militaristic one. We don’t have the troops and air power alone may make some feel temporarily better but in the long run just create more enemies whether state oriented enemies or young people who dedicate their lives to revenging what we do there.
Reading that article made me think of opportunities lost. A little conversation and a little less posturing and maybe the opportunities aren’t lost forever.
Talk softly and carry a big stick. We’ve got the stick, we just ain’t talkin’.

By: NC Cop

NC Cop — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:30:40 +0000

You justify not talking to Iran because their president doesn’t believe in the holocaust. Our president doesn’t believe in dinosaurs or civil liberties so I guess we’re even.

Wow, what great insight?!

Run along, ibfamous, the adults are talking.

I know what you are saying carsick, but if you honestly believe that Iran and Syria do not have a hand in providing weapons and personnel to the insurgency you are just being naive.

I read the article you posted and it was very interesting. It seems that you have one side saying that staying out of it is the best bet and one side saying intervene. So again, where does that leave us?

The pres. of Iran seems to be on the verge of being insane with some of his comments. I don’t see a particularly productive dialogue coming from him.

By: carsick

carsick — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:05:35 +0000

NC Cop There is not enough evidence on the table for me to judge how much, if any, state support is coming from the Sunni dominated Syria or the Shia dominated Iran, just as the IRA still gets support from Americans (not America). I'm not sure how that affects Iran's decision to sit down privately or not with representatives from the US. I came up with the intro to the question off the cuff. If you'd prefer, we could simply start the conversation by saying, "Whaddup with Iraq, Iran? Thoughts?" The point is the more we ignore them the more they seem to gain in perceived power whether illusion or real. Libya used to be an out and out enemy of the US too. Here's an interesting conversation from a few years ago conducted by the Hoover Instsitute you may like to read. Oddly, it's the same conversation we're having today in many ways. Only we're having it 4 years later and the non-diplomatic status quo has allowed things to get worse. LINK

By: ibfamous

ibfamous — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:38:29 +0000

You justify not talking to Iran because their president doesn’t believe in the holocaust. Our president doesn’t believe in dinosaurs or civil liberties so I guess we’re even.

By: NC Cop

NC Cop — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:38:20 +0000

Then the question arises, if an unstable Iraq is bad for Iran and Syria why are they pumping arms and terrorists into Iraq to destabilize it?????

By: carsick

carsick — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:16:00 +0000

My mistake on the date. Still seems a bit of a stretch to call it treason or “near treason” unless the president had actually secretly declared war and then told Rockefeller about it. And then Rockefeller told those countries leaders. That would be treasonous.

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:04:50 +0000

The President made that speech in January 2003, not January 2002!

By: carsick

carsick — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:58:07 +0000

Speech not “speach” typo.
If you read Rockefeller’s comment he didn’t say the president had declared war either. He said he believed the president had made up his mind.

By: carsick

carsick — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:55:46 +0000

Just read the speach. He was couching it a bit because he hadn’t actually told the military to attack yet. I said “his intent”.
President Bush:”We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.”