An Only Partially Tongue In Cheek Request of DU's Hillary Supporters

[Tom Rinaldo]

So, now that Wes Clark is no longer a potential direct rival of Senator Clinton for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination, could some of you folks who have not already done so maybe consider signing the petitions that Wes Clark has been circulating via StopIranWar.com to, um, Stop a War with Iran? I figured as long as it looked like Wes Clark might become a candidate himself some supporters of other Democrats running might have been reluctant to support one of his initiatives, but he's on your team now, so could you give it a thought?

Here is the web site: http://www.stopiranwar.com/

[rateyes]

1. K & R....but,

has HRC taken the war with Iran off her table?

[William769]

3. Why?

If Iran was to do something stupid that required a response, then people would say if she did anything, she's a flip flopper.

Thats ludicrous.

[rateyes]

4. I want to know if she thinks Iran has does something

already. I haven't heard her, or very many of the others, say. That's why.

[William769]

5. Thats still no reason to take it off the table.

Anything taken off the table is bad politics, just ask Nancy Pelosi.

[rateyes]

9. The OP is asking Hillary supporters to take it off THEIR table...

...just like Wes Clark took it off HIS table.

I want to know where Hillary stands on the issue of war in Iran. Does Bush get to send troops in without UN Authorization? Would she vote FOR such an authorization, as she did for Iraq?

I'm simply asking the damned question.

You may not care about the answer. I do.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. In fairness the OP is asking that real three dimensional diplomacy

sustained high level diplomacy, and not just verbal warnings and threats mascarading as diplomacy, be thrust front and center on the table now, not sabers whose rattling drown out any real opportunity for an ongoing frank and full discussion that can open up new alternatives to further conflict between our nations.

I know that because I wrote the OP. :)

[rateyes]

15. Then what the hell does this poster mean?

and, what are we to read into the address of the website: stopiranwar.com?

Obviously, Clark sees the Iran war on its way, and wants to stop it...through diplomacy, or whatever other matters...which means he has, at least for the time being, taken war with Iran off the table.

Am I really missing something, here?

I'm asking a question. Does Hillary Clinton, or her supporters AGREE with Clark on this issue?

No one seems to want to answer that question.

I'm with you on this one. I want to know if Hillary is with you.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. I tried to clarify a little below

I think we are in essential agreement, and I hope Hillary is also. Clark indicated in an answer to a question I asked him during live blogging yesterday that her views and his are close on this, but added that she has not found time yet to explain her full position in depth. I hope he is correct on the first part of his answer and that the second part changes soon.

[rateyes]

19. OK, but I don't understand the

"she hasn't found time" to explain her position in depth. That makes no sense to me. I know she's busy, but this seems to me to be a priority. I hope you're right. I really do.

[William769]

11. Wes Clark has not taken it off the table.

"I'm simply asking the damned question. You may not care about the answer. I do." Attitude problem?

So theres your answer.

[rateyes]

12. No attitude problem....

I just read the damned poster included in the OP.

"STOP THE IRAN WAR" is what it says. And, it's got Wes Clark's endorsement. That leads one to believe that Wes Clark has taken, in his mind, war with Iran off the table.

Good grief.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Clark does say that "War is not the answer".

He says so because he knows that whatever answer to our current tensions with Iran that a war would provide is not the answer that Americans really want, and he has spoken at length about why that is so. "Stop Iran War" to him means "Prevent Iran War". He thinks far better possible answers exist other than military conflict with that country and it is America's responsibility as a nation to aggressively pursue them first, not war, at this moment in history.

[rateyes]

18. I agree. I want to know if Hillary agrees.

I want to know her position on this. That's why I asked the question, and all I get is a damned lecture for daring to ask it.

It's not a good way to get others to vote for their candidate.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Clark knows enough not to take options off the table

when having them on the table can serve some useful function, up to and including "bluffing" in some cases. It is part of how dipomacy works. All is not flower arrangments and smiles around the table when diplomacy functions as an alternative to war. However Clark has essentially been warning all of us that the Bush Administration for all practical purposes has taken diplomacy OFF the table. They have it inverted. The only reason they formally allow diplomacy to be seen any place on "their table" is to bluff the American people into thinking that they have not already concluded that War with Iran is necessary. They are rigging the table to ensure that "diplomacy failed", clearing the way for them to attack. We have been down this road with Bush/Cheney before regarding U.N. diplomacy and Iran.

Clark has already tongue lashed Joe Lieberman in public, telling him that saber rattling at Iran right now is not helping keep America safe, it is instead counter productive.

[William769]

14. exactly correct.

[Vincardog]

23. TAking the idiotic principal of PREEMPTIVE WAR off the table is not bad politics it is

simply returning to the rule of law and sanity.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. No one has totally, but now is the best time to prevent that decision from even having to be made

Even Wes Clark, who has been pounding away for years trying to get through the public's deep denial that we were on a collision course for armed conflict with Iran, won't go so far as to say that under no possible circumstances should the U.S. attack Iran. In International state craft almost any option that anyone can come up with a half way rational scenario in support of "remains on the table". All of our current candidates, possibly excepting Kucinich and for all I know Gravel, are keeping that option "on the table" and I am sure if pressed that Dennis could think up a scenario under which he could support attacking Iran (though I assume that would be a very dire scenario indeed).

Wes Clark has amazed me in the past regarding Iran by openly stating that any responsible decision making process regarding what if any actions the United States should take if Iran were known with absolute certainty to be about to acquire nuclear weapons had to seriously look at any options open for attempting to peacefully co-exist with a nuclear armed Iran prior to concluding that we would be forced to attack that nation. No other leading national Democrat (again with the likely exception of Dennis Kucinich) has been willing to take the heat for even suggesting that it is conceivable the United States had choices other than attacking an Iran that was about to gain nuclear weapons. But honestly, I degress...

What Clark is saying is that whether you believe the United States can afford to let Iran get nuclear weapons or not, whether you believe they are trying to get nuclear weapons or not, whether you think we have to militarily attack Iran if they get those nukes or not, NOW is the time when the United States should be pulling out all the stops diplomatically to attempt to put relations between our nations on a better footing by exploring the legitimate national interests of both our nations, by having frank discussions about the grievances that both of our nations have against each other, and by attempting to find region wide solutions to region wide problems that pit our nations against each other.

And to build support for that type of approach Democrats need to start speaking out against an approach that puts the entire emphasis on demonizing Iran and all of their aspirations and intentions, while offering nothing to that nation other than sharp denunciations, the looming threat of being attacked and perhaps, at best, some ill defined acknowledgement made by some Democrats that we should be willing to "talk to Iran".

edited for a few obvious typos :)

[DURHAM D]

21. Wes was on Ed Schultz today.

One of the things he said is that if Iran is allowed to go nuclear at least a dozen other countries would soon be there as well. But, most importantly, he said that we need to be in direct talks instead of letting others have our proxy.

[William769]

2. I did it awhile ago.

I also support Hillary.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Thanks, n/t

[William769]

8. Your welcome.

:)

[durrrty libby]

20. How do you"Only Partially Tongue In Cheek "? Sounds odd

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Yup. That position of the tongue mimics a speech defect causing words to "sound odd"

The partially tongue in cheek reference mostly is to the part about any DUer refusing to sign a petition that might otherwise make sense to them because it is sponosred by someone who they may have reasons not to give support to at at that time. I know there are other reasons than that why some may have refused to sign, have not gotten around to signing, or never saw those petitions in the first place.