Clark comments on Hillary/Obama foreign policy spat.

[calteacherguy]

Clark: Don't limit your options
By John McCormick | Tribune staff reporter
August 4, 2007

His answers were polite, but retired four-star Gen. Wesley Clark made it fairly clear Friday in Chicago that he disagrees with two recent controversial statements Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has made on foreign policy.

After his appearance before the YearlyKos blogger convention at McCormick Place, Clark said leaders should never remove any military option.

"I don't think you take options off tables," he said, when asked about Obama's statement Thursday that he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance" to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Clark also seemed to side with Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) in a recent spat she and Obama had over whether it might be appropriate for a new president to meet with leaders of hostile regimes, without preconditions, during the first year in office.

"When you meet leaders of foreign governments, you have to know what you're going to be talking about," the Democrat and former presidential candidate said. "And it generally helps if there's the kind of buildup where the staffs can resolve things."

Clark said it is best to have specific goals prenegotiated and it is not enough to just look someone in the eye and shake hands. "It's not the way diplomacy works," he said.

When asked whether Obama's answer to that question in a recent debate was naive, as Clinton has suggested, there was a long pause.

"I think that both sides understand what this is, and I'm not going to get into the politics of this, the middle of this," Clark said. "The people around Barack Obama ... they all understand what the process is."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-clark_mccormickaug04,1,4352245.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

[countmyvote4real]

1. Follow the link to the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x299352

Nuclear destruction should be off the table if only for the sake of our planet. This article doesn't quite go that far, but it does attempt to document the suppression of the aftermath.

[killbotfactory]

2. I just don't understand why nukes are an option for pursuing terrorists

If Al-Qaeda terrorists knew they were going to be nuked, they would die happy. Can you imagine the shitstorm it would cause to have a nuke go off in that region? Do we really want to kickstart a nuclear arms race, start a nuclear war, and/or embolden terrorists and their sympathizers?

If we use a nuke in a first strike scenario, it won't matter how small or "tactical" it is, the result will be the same.

[calteacherguy]

4. One can agree with all that

and still not publically proclaim to the world they will not be used under any circumstance.

[killbotfactory]

6. No one in the world would think we are crazy enough to use them in the first place!

Because we are talking about pursuing terrorist cells in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where we would be crazy to entertain the idea of a first strike nuclear attack against a terrorist cell.

What's next? Nuking drug runners? Organized crime figures?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

7. Exactly. Does anyone really think HRC or Clark would use nukes?

They just understand the value the threat, whether explicit or implicit, of using them provides.

[killbotfactory]

9. What possible threat is a nuke to terrorists willing to kill innocents and die for their cause?

The only possible use for the threat of nukes is to blackmail the world into avoiding a nuclear war, like North Korea does.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. Obama said he would not use them "under any circumstances"

He then backpedaled but that is what the controversy was about. I agree with you on the uselessness of nukes against terrorism but the threat of using nukes can work against states.

[killbotfactory]

16. He wouldn't use them in this specific scenario!

Meaning pursuing terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He didn't say he would never use nukes, ever, under any circumstances. Anyone who thinks that after reading his exchange on the subject has a serious problem comprehending the English language, or is a partisan troll.

The only reason to have nukes is for MAD purposes, which is already crazy enough as it is. We don't need to kick it up a notch.

[wyldwolf]

24. no, he said he would not use them "under any circumstances"

C'mon. Are you saying you know what Obama is thinking??

[killbotfactory]

26. No, he didn't

I don't have to know what he's thinking, because he said it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html

[fujiyama]

10. A nuclear first strike policy

on the table makes little sense, especially for a nation with as powerful a conventional military force as the United States.

I don't see for one second, how it would make the US look weak if it took a nuclear first strike option off the table. But I think Hillary won't because she wouldn't want to take "tactical nukes" off the table.

Either way, it's all ridiculous. As we've seen, fighting terrorism is ultimately about good human intelligence with the cooperation of law enforcement and local populations, stealth operations, and combating fundamentalist religious extremism...

[Clintonista2]

14. My understanding is...

Obama was talking about nukes in general, not for use specifically against terrorists.

[killbotfactory]

17. Then your understanding is wrong.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton drew another distinction between herself and Sen. Barack Obama yesterday, refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden or other terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Clinton's comments came in response to Obama's remarks earlier in the day that nuclear weapons are "not on the table" in dealing with ungoverned territories in the two countries, and they continued a steady tug of war among the Democratic presidential candidates over foreign policy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html

[IndianaGreen]

3. Yesterday was the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, Thursday is Nagasaki's

Never again! For any Presidential candidate to speak so lightly about using such horrific weapons is utterly disgusting and deserving of condemnation.

The idea spoused by Hillary of using a first strike nuclear attack on any country in which there are terrorist cells operating, puts the entire planet at risk and would turn our nation into the biggest threat to humanity since Hitler's Holocaust.

There are limits beyond which we should never go, and the advocacy of first use of nuclear weapons is a show stopper in my support of any candidate or political party.

May I remind my fellow DUers that Seymour Hersh revealed in a recent article that the Pentagon had plans to use nuclear bunker buster bombs on Iran. Can you imagine what will happen to all the people exposed to the radioactive fallout from such weapons? Is this a Christian thing to support? Or Jewish? Or Muslim? Or Pagan? Or anything?

During the Cold War we just accepted the crazy notion that an American President could destroy all life on Earth just because he was pissed at a Soviet leader. How did we ever buy into that insane Kool-Aid? Now we are being asked to support a variant of Mutually Assured Destruction, except that this time there is no one on the other side to retaliate. The end result is the same, though. Millions will die!

Some issues are more important than country or political party. Any use of atomic weapons is a LIFE issue, a FAMILY issue, a HUMAN issue.

A Boy Who Received Radiation Burns On His Whole Body

This boy had thermal burns on more than one-third of his body, and his chest and the left side of his belly were seriously injured. He managed to leave the hospital after 3 years and 7 months. This person, who miraculously recovered, is now a father of two children, and recollects what happened then; "At that time I was riding a red bibycle on the streets of Sumiyoshi township (about 2 kilometers from the hypocenter). I was 16 years old, and it was my second year as a telegram messenger. The moment of face, I was blinded by the flash and thrown 3 meters away by the blast that came from my rear left, and my bicycle was twisted and bent. It was strange that I was not bleeding and did not feel any pain until I reached an underground shelter 300 meters away. The moment I reached the shelter, I felt severe pain in my back, which ran through my whole body. From then on, for three days and three nights, I kept on groaning in the shelter, and on the fourth day I was finally rescued and sent to a first-aid station."

"In the early stages, the only treatment I received for my burns was the application of a mixture of ash and oil as a substitute for medicine. I do not know how many times I yelled "kill me!" because of the severe pain and desperate feeling."

"Thereafter, as a result of the several operations I underwent, I escaped death and returned to work. Since I have once given up my life, I wish to dedicatemy new life to the struggle against atomic bombs."

He is continuing to devote his efforts to the prohibiton of atomic and hydrogen bombs.

http://www.gensuikin.org/english/photo.html

[OwnedByFerrets]

35. Wonderful insightful reply and one which I agree with

with all my heart. Any, and I mean any, candidate who would use Nuclear weapons on another country will NOT get MY vote. Period, end of story.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. Interesting...

As usual, Clark is right. What will be interesting is how Clarkies react to this. They seem to have lined up behind Obama among the current field and were mostly defending Obama during both controversies. It will be interesting to see what they say now that Clark, a man with great foreign policy experience, said essentially what Clinton said on both issues.

[killbotfactory]

8. He didn't agree on both issues, actually

When asked whether Obama's answer to that question in a recent debate was naive, as Clinton has suggested, there was a long pause.

"I think that both sides understand what this is, and I'm not going to get into the politics of this, the middle of this," Clark said. "The people around Barack Obama ... they all understand what the process is."

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. He agreed on the "meeting without preconditions" issue

Clark was not going to openly call someone who may be the next president naive or even just inexperienced. Notice the pause, though?

[killbotfactory]

15. He obviously doesn't want to get in the middle of a campaign fight

Of course Obama will do the groundwork to make the meetings with foreign leaders useful, as Clark said should be done. The implication that he wouldn't was just spin originating from the Clinton campaign.

The original question starting this left preconditions undefined, but the way Obama answered the question makes it clear he was referring to the Bush admin practice of making hostile nations bend to their will before negotiations are even started.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. I fully supported Clark in '04

but this time I'm leaning toward Clinton. I was split between Obama and Clinton for awhile, but Obama hasn't yet wowed me, and I think Clinton's running a near-perfect campaign.

[sampsonblk]

22. Clarkie here. Clark is right. Obama erred on this one.

[Wesin04]

25. This Clark supporter remains with Clark

Haven't lined up with anyone else. Why settle for second or third best when Clark's my first choice and he hasn't said he isn't running. With the expertise apparent, we should be encouraging him to go ahead and run.

[Captain Hilts]

29. Same here. Still for Clark. nt

[Schema Thing]

33. I think he made clear that he thinks Obama understands

how to deal with foreign leaders, and that he (Clark) understands that Obama simply framed his answer incorrectly.

IOW, much as the press and people in general (and possibly even the two parties) would like to say that obama and Hillary's answers were opposites, they were not really that far apart, so why go to great lengths trying to make one answer the right and the other wrong.

In spirit, Obama is right, we need to talk to people. Technically, Hillary is right, you set up a framework and a dialog before you invite them over for tea.

[jillan]

12. Well Teacherguy -

I am amazed you posted this since you support Obama, and this is not in his favor.

And I have say that I admire you for that.

The thing that drives me crazy around here are people that think their candidate is perfect and never screws up.
They all do.

I agree with most of the posts - NO NUKES ever ever ever again.

[snowbear]

18. He does?

Huh.. I've always assumed teacherguy was a Hillaryite..

Cal.. congrats on the big move!

[goodgd_yall]

20. No....didn't he go over to Edwards?

[Ethelk2044]

38. This person does not support Obama he supports edwards

[sandnsea]

21. Turn the page on nuclear war

I think it's time to take first strike nukes off the table if we want every other country to do the same. Committing to not use them in certain circumstances is not the same thing as a unilateral disarmament. I think Clark is wrong on that. I also wonder if he'd support Obama in not taking anything off the table as it pertains to going into Pakistan without permission, or whether he'd back Hillary on that too.

[flpoljunkie]

27. Hillary has also been criticized for refusing to rule out the nuclear option in Pakistan. Time to

turn the page on talking tough about dropping nukes, but it is past time to get serious about going after Osama bin Laden--providing, of course, we have actionable intelligence and Musharraf refuses to act.

Altho Clark said "I'm not going to get in the politics of this, the middle of this," this is exactly what he did.

[wyldwolf]

23. OLD TIME Clarkie here - from when he was accused of being a DLC stalking horse and...

...a neocon/Republican on DU...

The Retired Four Star General and Supreme Allied Commander is correct. The only question now is when will Obama and his followers claim Obama has better foreign policy judgment than General Wesley Clark.

[Captain Hilts]

28. This is why Clark's my guy. nt

[Karmadillo]

30. Nicely reasoned response.

nt

[Broke Dad]

32. Why is Clark relevant today?

Why is Clark relevant? What has he done in the last four years to change America for the better? And since when do the generals get to dictate foreign policy? My understanding is that foreign policy is about more than guns. Let the generals maintain, load, watch and arrange the guns. We will tell them when we need the guns. Not vice versa. Besides, we need more butter in the US and less guns.

[FrenchieCat]

37. If you don't know what Clark has been doing for the last 4 years,

then it is your comments that are irrelevant, not Wes Clark!

And in reference to the Generals listening to the civilian leadership, well maybe that's why we are fighting a war that we didn't have to fight. :shrug: Maybe IF the Civilians had listened to the Generals, we wouldn't even be having this 4 year trillion dollar war!

As for the last 1/2 of your post, it sounds more like a cliche than a thoughtful analysis. It ain't about neither guns nor butter, its about a fucked up policy hatched out and given to us by this administration.

[Cameron27]

31. K&R

[Adelante]

34. Clark supports a ban on nuclear weapons

But he's not about to exclude anything that's currently in the arsenal. The thing is to get them out of the arsenal, which is not something that will be accomplished in this primary race or on anything less than a global scale. Until that happens and such a policy is legitimized by Congress through treaties with other nuclear nations, though, I doubt we will ever hear Clark or the Democratic candidates, including Obama, taking nuclear weapons "off the table."

The largest elephant in this room is the increased threat by availability of nuclear weapons to groups who are not states, who couldn't care less about treaties or global pressure, and who are our avowed enemies; or the capability in the hands of nut job states like North Korea. The public is not about to understand or accept the idea of nuclear weapons "off the table" when they are on so many other tables. It's not logical to think so.

Any candidate who says nuclear weapons/nuclear strike is off the table will not be elected president in 2008. As a matter of the politics of it, Obama unleashed a can of worms through a clumsy statement, which he is going to have to roll back into a coherent message. I think that Obama and his advisors would understand this has to happen. The impracticality of using nuclear strike against Al Qaeda they already understand, but the efficacy of nukes in campaign rhetoric, they flubbed, because it is just too fraught with complications. We are a country who does not discuss the subject one way or another. Period. Correct answer for the times and policy, if not for all our good wishes for the future of the globe.

I'm thinking over sandnsea's point about a change from the Cold War rhetoric of deterrence. The first strike standard has been to not talk about it. This has functioned because of its psychological value in deterrence. Will we or won't we? Only we know for sure, so don't fuck with us. I have to think more about it, but my first reaction is that this is something a president in office could initiate, as a positive direction for the national consciousness, such as Kennedy's opening up the space frontier, which could capture the public's imagination and turn the tide eventually into a fresh national perspective. I'm not so sure a candidate can do it with nukes at this time and still win and I think the loose nukes threat, unless that threat is brought under control globally, which is not going to happen any day soon, works against you. I just don't know for sure how I feel. I have to give it more thought.

So on that prong of the FP controversy, I side with Clinton, provisionally. I don't think Obama answered fully, so I don't agree his foreign policy ideas are naive or that he would not be capable as president in that area. I just think he flubbed it, but can bring it back.

On the second prong, discussions with politically or historically unfriendly nations, Hillary got it right and Obama got it wrong. The debate question had to do with a promise to meet in the first year of office with unfriendly leaders "without preconditions" - not whether or not meeting with such leaders would be a good or bad thing. Clark, for the record, going back to the 2004 primaries and forward, advocates meeting with Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, etc. He would not do so "without preconditions" meaning diplomatic negotiating, and that's how I see it, too. Now I don't think Obama would do it any differently in practice, but he gave the wrong answer as a matter of policy and politics.

On the third, strikes against Al Qaeda inside Pakistan in a situation of actionable intelligence and in the case where the Pakistanis can't or won't do it themselves, Obama is absolutely correct in saying he would do it. So is Clinton. So is Edwards. No matter how supporters try to swing this one, there is no substantive difference in the positions. To my knowledge, Clark has not addressed this specifically in the current instance, but he has in the past agreed with Obama's stance and I expect he would now.

One last point I want to make. Clark says what he believes, that's how he is. In this political climate it's interpreted as support for one candidate or another, perhaps unavoidably, but it's not the best conclusion to draw. He's going to say what he would say anyway. In the event he endorses a candidate he might hold back on his positions and present the candidate's positions, but unless that happens, I wouldn't read into this that he supports a candidate over another candidate because he agrees on one issue or another.

[sniffa]

36. the staLking horse agrees with hiLLary?

i'm shocked. :wow: