What does Wes Clark think of Hillary's Iran statements

[johnnydrama]

You know, this Wes Clark.

[cliffordu]

1. Hmmmmm. I hadn't thought of him......I wonder too...

By this time tomorrow he might be dead to her, also....

:rofl:

[newmajority]

2. There's a good question.

Will the General join Bill Richardson and Robert Reich in the EX-Clintonista camp soon?

[bigtree]

3. Obama says no options are off the table

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/clintons-umbrel.html

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Saying all options are on the table is A LOT different than saying...

You will attack and obliterate Iran.

[Taxmyth]

5. So Obama is saying he would use diplomacy if Iran attacks Israel?

Wow, that's something people really need to know. Let's get him to say that, shall we?

[Amonester]

7. Iran will not attack (directly) Israel, because...

they're not stupid... they know they'd be "finished"
now, if they would retaliate (directly) to any (direct) BS "preemptive" attack by Israel...
it would be another sad story (IMHO)

nevertheless, false-flag ops R not off the table with the junta

[WinkyDink]

22. This is the response given by HRC to the HYPOTHETICAL.

[TLM]

8. Hillary once again shows her war monger colors....

While Obama gives a reasoned and rational response.


Spin spin spin for your war monger.


Maybe if you spin hard enough you can spin the blood off your hands.

[Taxmyth]

11. Barack once again shows his ignorance of foreign policy

While Senator Clinton is focused and precise on what would occur should this highly unlikely event take place.

Spin spin spin for your empty suit.

Maybe if you spin hard enough you can have an excuse for backing Senator Obama.

[ginnyinWI]

29. Senator Clinton made herself look like a neocon hawk.

I don't think she really is one, but she plays one on TV. She took her pandering a step too far. Nobody wants a president who is anything like the current one.

This isn't about Obama, it's about how she made herself look.

[earthlover]

12. Hillary uses inflamatory words, Obama more reasoned

keeping all the options on the table is the smart move, diplomatically. Running off your mouth about annihilation is amatuerish, and actually counter productive. If the Iranians think we are out to annihilate them anyway, they would be less likely to act peacefully and less likely to respond to diplomacy.

Hillary's real message is not to Iran. She is just trying to buy votes by sounding tough and macho and by instilling fear. She is sounding more and more like Bush every day.

Tough macho talk like Bush and Hillary's only paints us into a corner.

Hillary is NOT READY to be commander in chief. Being the school yard bully is not enough.

[redqueen]

24. Well said. I don't know why some are having trouble understanding that.

:thumbsup:

[oviedodem]

18. Once again... not listening. Obama has said that anyone who attacks Israel

will be dealt with in heavy handed fashion. What he has NOT said, unlike Hillary, is that "massive retaliation" is what will be used if Iran attacks ANY middle eastern country. Now, I can almost understand Israel but we are protecting Syria and Jordan now?

Come on.

[RichardRay]

20. Could be. Let's see now...

Iran - A year of two from now:

Ahmadinejad is still holding onto the presidency, but he's continued to lose influence and power to Rasfanjai's group. The Iranian economy is in the tank and there have been street protests over the mullah's continued interference in the electoral process.

A nuclear bomb lands in Tel Aviv. First indications from satellite tracking is that it came from Iran. We don't know who fired it, the Iranian government says it wasn't them.

What does the U.S. do? Retaliate unilaterally with massive conventional force? Support Israel to retaliate with their own nuclear capacity? Kidnap the entire U.N. Security Council and fly them to Tel Aviv?

We probably don't send some guy in a golf shirt and penny loafers with no socks over there to 'make peace' - but diplomacy and statecraft include lots of options between that and starting WW III.

I believe that Senator Obama would use every bit of resource and skill he has to find the best solution he could - whichever option that might turn out to be. I believe that Senator Clinton would also consider options, but her political rhetoric at this time would limit those options, and I'm not confident that she really believes that the options would work. John McCain might do OK, he knows something about war and misery, but he might also just get grumpy and decide that Tehran needs more parking.

There's a lot of space between a banner headline saying 'Obama says he would not defend Israel' and 'Obama says all options are on th table'. That's space that could be very useful (even 'expedient') at some future date.

[bigtree]

6. at least one of his options would 'obliterate' Iran

Stop pretending that he's not considering nuclear retaliation as one of the options. It's not credible, given his identical stance as Clinton on defending Israel.

[TLM]

9. Whereas that's war monger hillary's first and only option....

Is it any surprise she wants to continue the escalation of the mid-east hostilities she helped Bush inflame?

[bigtree]

10. whereas?

[SIMPLYB1980]

13. "All Options on the table"

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/09/gen_wesley_clar.html

“I think it is a serious concern and it should be met by a strategy of engagement with Iran at this point,” he said, adding that while all options are on the table, a sustained dialog is crucial and military force should only be used as a “last, last, last resort.”

Obama leaves all options on the table as well.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=860406&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1
Dennis Kucinich attacked Obama for saying that "all options are on the table? Its important for people to reflect on the real meaning of that, that you're setting the stage for another war." And Obama attacked back: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran. But have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us that is a profound security threat for America and one that we have to take seriously."

[Bolo Boffin]

14. An American response to Iran after Iran and Israel exchange attacks assumes...

...that there would be an Iran left to respond to.

[dkf]

16. Doesn't have to be Iran or Israel, it would be any country in the Middle East

that attacks or is the attacker.

[WinkyDink]

23. No. It's a question specifically of our supporting and defending AN ALLY.

[dkf]

33. You haven't been paying attention.

She wants anyone who agrees to not pursue nuclear weapons to be under the protection of the United States.

[dkf]

15. I want to know what all those Generals think of Hillary's

crazy umbrella policy.

Are they now going to go on TV and support this policy?

Really, I would like some answers.

[Clark2008]

17. I'm guessing he feels conflicted.

However, if HRC gets the nomination... Wes Clark, as her VP choice, will reel her in.

Besides, this is just campaign rhetoric.

For the record... I still don't like any of our choices for president.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Every President has threatened nuclear retaliation against any nation

that launches a first nuclear strike against one of our treaty allies. The concept referred to is our "nuclear umbrella". During the Cold War "Mutually Assured Destruction" was a strategy that provided a strong deterrence to either side using nuclear weapons.

This talk is premised on a specific scenario where Iran is the first nation on Earth to use nuclear weapons in an attack against another nation since Hiroshima. It is not a threat to attack Iran to stop it from getting nukes. It is a threat to attack Iran after it has already bombed another nation using nukes. The threat is designed to give Iran good reasons to not even think of being the first to use nuclear weapons.

Actually it is a more moderate statement than that which almost all American politicians have been making for the last few years. The standard line has been "under no circumstances will the United States allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons". That statement implies a preventive attack by the U.S. against Iran to prevent Iran from getting nukes. Clinton's statement implies the possibility that the U.S. will live with a nuclear Iran rather than attack Iran to prevent that possibility. The red line gets shifted. Instead of attacking Iran to stop them from getting nukes, it shifts to attacking Iran if they actually USE nukes. It moves to the type of policy that we used to maintain peace during the Cold War.

[SIMPLYB1980]

21. Well said.

[redqueen]

25. Every president has said they'd obliterate some country?

Really?

[WinkyDink]

27. Perhaps not spoken. But do you think the notion was not TACIT??

[redqueen]

30. Do you know what DIPLOMACY means?

[WinkyDink]

26. Oh, now you're talking SENSE and HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE!! SHAME on you!

Don't you know there's a BAND-WAGON to hop on?! You know---the "Hillary is a War-Monger" one?

[redqueen]

31. No... now they're making things up to try to make it seem like Hillary didn't say something stupid..

AGAIN.

[BootinUp]

34. Rec'ing this post

:)

[WinkyDink]

28. I wonder what IRAN thinks.

[Eurobabe]

32. I still can't understand WHY he endorsed NEO-CON Hillary

:shrug:

[Bonobo]

35. He is, I'm sure against it, but he is first and foremost a good soldier apparently.

Serving his Commander-in-Chief still.