We should negotiate directly with Iran.

[Eric J in MN]

The US and Iran have a lot to talk about.

They have an elected president, even if we don't like him.

Tell your Senators we need direct negotations with Iran.

[benburch]

1. And the Senators would do what?

This is a Unitary Executive here. You either live with that he does or eliminate him from the equation through impeachment.

[Eric J in MN]

2. Having Democratic Senators say in interviews

that we should negotiate directly with Iran, would be a lot better than having them say we should consider bombing Iran, as Joe Lieberman did.

If every Democratic Senator goes on TV and says "Let's negotiate directly with Iran," and Bush bombs Iran instead, he's going to look bad.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Yep...that's what Wes Clark has been advocating......

We have to talk to them...before sanctions...and certainly before fucking bombing them.

[Eric J in MN]

4. Has Wesley Clark advocated direct negotiations, or

through Europe?

[CarolNYC]

5. He's been advocating direct negotiations for a while now....

Just a few instances.....

From his address to the Council on Foreign Relations in Feb 2006:

"When we're dealing with Iran, we need the diplomatic throw weight of a Western world put together with Russia and China, not three European countries that are operating on a franchise agreement with the United States. The United States needs to be directly involved in those negotiations.......
......

I would encourage the United States leadership right now, this week, before March, before it goes to the United Nations Security Council, immediately to talk to the Iranian government. Iran has been a -- it's a great nation. It's 60, 70 million people with a tremendous heritage, and we've got a wonderful Iranian-American community. And the policy that we've pursued toward Iran for the last five to 10 years, no matter what the historical antecedents were or our anger at 1979 and the hostages, still, it's a policy that hasn't served American interests.
.......

So right now what we need to be doing is talking to Iran -- right now, this week."

http://securingamerica.com/node/607

-----------------

From his Real State of the Union address in Janury of 2006:

"But actions on Iran are urgent.

We should join now — right now - in opening new talks with Iran, in which we ourselves participate, before pressing for UN action or moving toward the military option."

http://securingamerica.com/node/560

--------------------

From an appearance on Forbes on Fox from Oct 2005:

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Yeah, I think that, you know, we don't know whether Iran will cooperate, because we've not tried. But Iran has common interests, and I don't think you can contemplate moving ahead in the Middle East and staying in Iraq if you continue the policy of isolating Iran as they move toward a nuclear weapon. We're going to have a challenge with Iran. Let's face it, but let's talk before we use force on Iran.
(overlapping)
Forbes: Yes, General. The fact of the matter is Iran is under a theocracy. It is under a dictator, Islamic dictatorship. They're not going to change. Maybe the Iranians can change the government, but it's not going to change.
(Several people talk at once)
Asman: Hold on folks, one at a time. Go ahead General.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Steve, I don't know how you can say that with such certainty. I've had a lot of Iranians coming up to me. I don't know how you can say that. You're giving a theory. We've got our troops on the ground.
(overlapping)
Forbes: That's fact general, since the late 1970's. Look at the situation there.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, it's not a fact. Listen, we can talk to Iran. We've got to try to talk to Iran, because the alternative is to use force.
(overlapping)
Forbes: We've tried to talk to Iran a number of times, General.
unidentified person: Let's bring them a cake.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, this administration hasn't, and we haven't tried since we've got 150,000 troops, and I'll tell you when you put 150,000 troops in a region, it changes the diplomacy. So, let's use a little diplomacy and help those troops over there.

http://securingamerica.com/node/284

-------------------

From an address at the University of Florida at Gainesville in Sept 2005:

"Iran has biological weapons and chemical weapons we believe.

They certainly used the chemical weapons, used them 15 years ago against the Iraqis and believe they want nuclear weapons but probably don't have them yet.

They're working to get them and we haven't been affected yet -- effective yet in stopping them from moving toward nuclear weapons.

In fact, we won't talk to the Iranians about this.  We've let Europe negotiate but not us."

http://securingamerica.com/node/585

[Eric J in MN]

6. Thanks. He's so much more sensible than

Joe Lieberman, and the Bush people, etc.

[CarolNYC]

7. Yeah, and idiot Steve Forbes

in that exchange with Clark..."It's a fact" that we can't talk to Iran....

Unfortunately, I don't see Bush and his ilk listening to anything reasonable or sensible....

[Eric J in MN]

9. How did Steve Forbes figuret that we CAN'T talk to Iran? nt

nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. of course

http://www.dontattackiran.org

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state."

snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."