So the Senate unanimously declared that Iran was committing acts of war against the US

[Nikki Stone1]

See thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1328253&mesg_id=1328253

97-0

So, is all this arguing over Iraq just political theater? The next war is already on the way. Three aircraft carriers (including the Enterprise) are in the area. Is there any way to stop this war with Iran and doesn't this remind you of another vote, authorizing Bush to take action against Iraq?

[seemslikeadream]

1. been trying to tell folks but

:shrug:

[redqueen]

2. Denial is easier

than dealing with the awful possibility that the party we've worked so hard for is about to stab us all in the back...

AGAIN

[Nikki Stone1]

5. The vote was 97-0. I don't want to hear one Dem excuse that they didn't know what the vote meant.

:grr:

[seemslikeadream]

8. oh if we only knew then what we know now

;( It's not our fault

[redqueen]

11. "They have access to intelligence that we don't have"

I expect to see that one a lot...

at least for a while...

until the truth comes out...

again.

*sigh*

[Nikki Stone1]

14. I hate that one. There is no way to fight it until after the fact.

Is this the Kissinger plan we are following?

[redqueen]

15. Well it's so well worked this long...

why stop using such a good tactic, if the audience still finds it believable?

[scarletwoman]

17. There's no "ABOUT to stab us all in the back" -- they've already done it!

The House already passed a resolution to call on the UN Security Council to bring Iran up on charges of "inciting genocide" on June 20 -- a resolution that passed 411 to 2 (the two nay votes being Dennis Kucinich & Ron Paul).

And just this past Wednesday, the Senate passed an amendment to the Defense spending bill -- 97 to 0! -- that basically accuses Iran of "acts of war" against the U.S. in Iraq.

The stabbing has already happened.

sw

[redqueen]

20. Yes, you're right.

Did I not say "Again"?

I meant to say "again".

Cause it happens repeatedly.

Yet here we are, backing the 'marketable', 'top tier' candidates.

[scarletwoman]

36. Well, I don't know about "we" backing the "top tier" candidates -- I sure as hell ain't.

I've been posting for months that if Clinton gets the nom, I'll leave the president part of my 2008 ballot blank. I will NOT vote for her. I wasn't sure about Obama before -- whether I'd hold my nose and vote for him -- but this makes up my mind. No way. And I'm quite sure that Biden WON'T get the nom, so he's irrelevent.

Anyway, yes, you DID say "again" -- it's just that you phrased it in future tense. I was just saying that *this* particular back stabbing has already occurred.

sw

[leftchick]

49. I agree sw

and Edwards shares the same Aipac foreign policy as the DLCers in the pack. Disgusting and depressing that all of the money is going to war mongers. But then, WAR is big business isn't it? :(

[scarletwoman]

61. This is just all too much to bear.

The OP posted the link to my own post about this, which is basically a link to and long excerpt of a Chris Floyd piece. If you follow the link to Empire Burlesque, and read his entire piece there's a long section where ponders the seeming death-wish of the human species -- it's very moving.

It breaks my heart that we are on this beautiful bountiful planet that has everything necessary to sustain life for everyone, yet there are all these humans who want nothing more than to kill and destroy because of some ego-driven urge to have POWER over others. It's insane...

:cry:

sw

[leftchick]

73. neocons, both dem and repuke are like the Transformers

my boys like the movie, I see the analogy. :(

[scarletwoman]

75. My "boys" are 32 and 23, and live out of state -- I won't be seeing the movie, but I've

sort of heard enough about to be able to appreciate the analogy.

Personally, I think the neocons and DLC neolibs are just two branches of the same mafia. :(

[leftchick]

78. that is exactly what they are

An Elite Mafia and we are the people they kill and rip off for their greed.

[TahitiNut]

51. I'll write-in Dennis Kucinich if it come to that.

:shrug:

[Individualist]

56. Same here

[scarletwoman]

62. If there's a way to do a write-in on the ballot, I guess I'll do that also.

I'm just not sure if my precinct's new-fangled optical scan ballots have that option. But you're absolutely correct, writing in Kucinich is a better choice than just leaving the ballot blank.

sw

[Tom Rinaldo]

92. I'm still hoping Wes Clark will run

He hasn't said he won't, and he says he "thinks about it every day". Clark isn't afraid to take on Neocons in any Party.

[malaise]

35. I give up

I can't take any more of this.

[Adsos Letter]

3. And...

the support ships from a 4th carrier group (sans carrier) are on their way. These would be ships that carry most of the CG's cruise missile capabilities, as well as provide extra defense for the carriers already there.

Sounds like they're serious to me...

[PDJane]

4. You're gonna do it.

I hate to say it, but yeah, you're gonna do it. And don't forget Kristol's warnings that Pakistan is on the way too.

If there was ever a time for a revolution, it's now, folks.

[Adsos Letter]

7. There was a lot of talk at the

White House presser this morning about bin Laden and al Qaida in Pakistan...

[Nikki Stone1]

10. This all seems like incredible lunacy.

They will need a draft for all of this.

[Adsos Letter]

21. well...maybe that is one of the goals of the whole thing...

or the current apocalyptic interpretations so popular with the Dispensationalist crowd at the moment. And oil.

[ShortnFiery]

29. No, These TREASONOUS Legislators "Never forget who they're truly working for ..."

:grr: :thumbsdown: :nuke:

Feel Like I'm Fixing To Die Rag (Next Stop Iran)
Country Joe & the Fish -

Come on all of you big strong men
Uncle Sam needs your help again
he's got himself in a terrible jam
way down yonder in Iran so
put down your books and pick up a gun we're
gonna have a whole lotta fun

(CHORUS)
And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for
don't ask me I don't give a damn, next stop is Iran
And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates
ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee we're all gonna die

Come on generals, let's move fast
your big chance has come at last
now you can go out and get those rag-heads
cos the only good Persian is the one that's dead and
you know that peace can only be won when we've
blown 'em all to kingdom come

Come on wall street don't be slow
why man this war is a go-go
there's plenty good money to be made by
supplying the army with the tools of its trade
let's hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
they drop it on the country of Iran

Come on mothers throughout the land
pack your boys off to Iran
come on fathers don't hesitate
send your sons off before it's too late
and you can be the first ones on your block
to have your boy come home in a box

[John Q. Citizen]

69. No, it will be an aerial bombardment that lasts and lasts. No invasion for the

reason you cited

[me b zola]

70. I suspect that they will use this "need" to sell the idea of private armies

That's just my hunch.

[SoonerPride]

71. Privatize military completely. America, the mercenary tyrant.

Will the people accept a war with Iran?

[me b zola]

89. I'm not optimistic about the American people not being fooled again.

The * cabal has shown a mastery of the use of propaganda and manufacturing consent. I also beleve that they will provoke (or manufacture) an incident that will make their "product" easier to sell.

[bbgrunt]

94. Isn't it obvious that "the people" are irrelevant?

[Solly Mack]

6. ....

k/r

[babylonsister]

9. AND, Iran is cooperating with IAEA on inspections of nuclear program:

http://voanews.com/english/2007-07-13-voa24.cfm

IAEA Says Iran to Allow Inspections of Heavy Water Reactor
By VOA News
13 July 2007


The U.N. nuclear agency says Iran will allow inspectors to visit its heavy water reactor as part of an agreement aimed at resolving questions about Iran's nuclear program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said Friday that Iran agreed to allow U.N. inspectors to visit the reactor at Arak by the end of this month.

The U.N. agency also said the two sides agreed on how to resolve remaining issues regarding Iran's past plutonium experiments.

more...

[Nikki Stone1]

12. I saw that this morning. How fucking fabricated is all this?

:grr:

[babylonsister]

31. IMO it has been for quite awhile. I posted

this question yesterday, but didn't get much feedback:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1317902

How is Al Qaeda and Iran in cahoots if they can't stand each other?

[merh]

72. How could Saddam have anything to do with 9/11 or AQ

when OBL hated Saddam, called him an infidel, and AQ hated how progressive Iraq was?

:(

[Zucca]

32. "cooperation" only after we start getting serious?

I hate to be the lone voice of reason here, and I am not advocating more war. However, Iran waits until the last minute to cooperate? That to me says that our guys were right, they are getting to close to nukes. I for one would hate to see nukes in Irans hands, I would also hate to see them in Al Queda's hand (through Pakistan) If I had to chose, I guess Iran would be a better option to have them. I believe the Iranian people are not completely in tune with their current government and may eventually change things themselves. How ever, If Pakistan were in imminant danger of falling into civil war, I would not be against going in too secure the nukes with Israels help (as a rumored plan is said to be in place) If you folks think Pakistan is stable, you need just look at the dozens or so attempts on the Presidents life over there. We need to ensure the nukes are not falling into Al Quedas hand or we could be in trouble. If you think Al Queda would hesitate to use them, well I guess you are not truly bright. I hope we accept Irans offer and go the inspection route. I also hope we help stabilize Pakistan and work out a deal to crush Al Queda within it's borders. Simply put, President General Pervez Musharraf is unable or unwilling to police vast sections of his territory. At some point we need to work out something to help him get this done. We could offer support or get permission to go in ourselves. By the way Iran has been commiting acts of War, It is true. We cannot tolerate it and a vote in the senate (unanimous) may help send a message we are serious. Hopefully It will boost diplomacy along. If theres no conflict, you need no votes or posturing. I see this vote as posturing to show a united country that is willing to defend itself from Irans attacks. Whether you agree with Iraq war or not, Iran has crossed lines and is commiting acts of war VS our soldiers...through supplies and through actual actions across the border. We cannot sit still for it, It only encourages more acts. The vote may be posturing and the carriers going there could also be part of that effort. Iran saying it will agree to inspections shows that if this is posturing, It had some effect.

[Wednesdays]

43. Yeah, the lone voice of reason is the one whooping it up for war

We're beyond the looking-glass.

[Zucca]

54. Try reading my post before responding ...

Blind activism causes blindness pal
I did not advocate war but said Pakistan is a bigger danger,,,,and Posturing to get Iranian compliance is not a bad idea. With no implications or threats Iran will just move forward unimpeded.

Try reading comprehension!

[bvar22]

65. So, you signed up? Sending YOUR kids?

*

[MadHound]

77. Hey, "voice of reason", what part of "can't build a bomb for ten years" don't you understand?

Even if Iran is working balls to the wall enriching uranium for a bomb, it is going to take them a loooong while, like ten years or so. Uranium hexaflouride enrichment is a slow process, especially if you are enriching to weapons grade as opposed to fuel grade. Iran is not nuclear threat.

Second, if Bushboy hadn't laid down the whole "Axis of Evil" thing on Iran, we wouldn't be having to deal with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as PM. But nooo, we rattle the war saber at Iran, and the Iranian people, who were well into making democratic reforms, react by electing an uber nationalist like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Great diplomacy there.

And what, exactly, acts of war has Iran committed? This is much like the situation in Vietnam when we went to war there, with US forces slipping over the border into Laos, engage and enemy, retreat across the border and claim that Laos is being beligerent when they follow across the border to extract their revenge for what we did.

Bushco has been bound and determined to go into Iran ever since he got into office, and now the Democrats are enabling it. There is no legitimate reason for us to do so, and frankly any case for doing so is built on quicksand. If we do go into Iran, it will simply be another illegal, immoral war that the US will lose.

It is best to deal with Iran diplomatically, not with force.

[Zucca]

33. "cooperation" only after we start getting serious?

I hate to be the lone voice of reason here, and I am not advocating more war. However, Iran waits until the last minute to cooperate? That to me says that our guys were right, they are getting to close to nukes. I for one would hate to see nukes in Irans hands, I would also hate to see them in Al Queda's hand (through Pakistan) If I had to chose, I guess Iran would be a better option to have them. I believe the Iranian people are not completely in tune with their current government and may eventually change things themselves. How ever, If Pakistan were in imminant danger of falling into civil war, I would not be against going in too secure the nukes with Israels help (as a rumored plan is said to be in place) If you folks think Pakistan is stable, you need just look at the dozens or so attempts on the Presidents life over there. We need to ensure the nukes are not falling into Al Quedas hand or we could be in trouble. If you think Al Queda would hesitate to use them, well I guess you are not truly bright. I hope we accept Irans offer and go the inspection route. I also hope we help stabilize Pakistan and work out a deal to crush Al Queda within it's borders. Simply put, President General Pervez Musharraf is unable or unwilling to police vast sections of his territory. At some point we need to work out something to help him get this done. We could offer support or get permission to go in ourselves. By the way Iran has been commiting acts of War, It is true. We cannot tolerate it and a vote in the senate (unanimous) may help send a message we are serious. Hopefully It will boost diplomacy along. If theres no conflict, you need no votes or posturing. I see this vote as posturing to show a united country that is willing to defend itself from Irans attacks. Whether you agree with Iraq war or not, Iran has crossed lines and is commiting acts of war VS our soldiers...through supplies and through actual actions across the border. We cannot sit still for it, It only encourages more acts. The vote may be posturing and the carriers going there could also be part of that effort. Iran saying it will agree to inspections shows that if this is posturing, It had some effect.

[ShortnFiery]

40. Bullshit! It matters not even if Iran has Nuclear Power, Persians are NOT Stupid!!!

They won't use it. Remember DETERRENCE?!?

This is an underhanded way to FEAR-MONGER us "little people" into approving *perpetual war,* and thus keep the Military Industrial Complex fat and sassy. :puke: :grr: :(

[Zucca]

53. Did you even read my post?

Blind activism causes blindness pal
I did not advocate war but said Pakistan is a bigger danger,,,,and Posturing to get Iranian compliance is not a bad idea. With no implications or threats Iran will just move forward unimpeded.

Try reading comprehension!

[ShortnFiery]

67. I did read your post pal. And I don't appreciate any implication to the contrary.

Hello? We all know that our BLUSTER is not going to slow Iran down. That's the problem with the Bush Administration: it's all "blowing shit up" and "posturing" that has gotten our entire country into an unholy MESS!

It's time to get "the neighbors" (you know the TRUE neighbors of Iraq) involved at the negotiating table.

TRY REALISM because our posturing has made Our Beloved America the most feared and loathed nation in the world. I want to change that - I want our country to follow our Constitution and stop tear assing around the world KILLING AND TORTURING PEOPLE. :thumbsdown:

I'm so ashamed of our Unitary Executive. We need leadership with Moral Courage and the strength to use Diplomacy first before *blowing shit up.*

[AntiFascist]

66. Not only that, but we are also fighting for oil and the currency in which it is traded...

just today Iran demanded that Japan purchase oil in yen. There is buzz going around that the yen will start ramping up relatively to the dollar. If the dollar continues to fall, we will be forced to raise interest rates faster, having more adverse effects on the housing market and killing the economy. This whole war effort against Iran is economically motivated, no matter what the current propaganda.

[Phrogman]

76. The US has wrecked Iran's neighbors with war and Israel is threatening to attack her

and you think they're the bad ones for wanting sufficient weaponry for self defense?

[bbgrunt]

95. exactly.

[rug]

13. Is it a non-binding Declaration of War?

[Nikki Stone1]

16. Nope. It's about justifying what is to follow.

Congress doesn't declare war anymore. It just gives leverage and pats on the back to the Executive Branch.

[steve2470]

18. is this the correct vote ?

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00242

[Nikki Stone1]

26. It appears to be. Lieberman's Amendment

....

[scarletwoman]

28. Yep. That's the one -- thanks to Lieberman... (nt)

[ShortnFiery]

19. Dumb a**ed Senators best be prepared to sent THEIR loved ones to go kill and die in Iran.

:grr: They're not getting my family. :grr:

[Swamp Rat]

22. k&r

[BlackHawk706867]

23. In addition to all of the above, if this were to happen it gives Bush the

opportunity to declare Marshall Law which could last forever.... That's not a pretty thought.

ww

[Zywiec]

60. Who is Marshall? n/t

[spanone]

24. Is this why Karl Rove said Iraq would not be the big issue in 2008?

[mudesi]

25. Why did all those Democrats vote for this? (nm)

[ShortnFiery]

34. These Senators voted for this because they care more about their CAREERS in The Senate ...

than the welfare of the American People OR that of the innocents within the country of Iran. These treasonous cowards disgust me. :puke: :grr: :thumbsdown:

[Zucca]

38. Could be to show a strong and united front for negotiations.

Any of you guys ever think The democrats and Republicans talk much? Maybe moving a few ships and making a unanimous vote is just a show of unity and strength. If Iran has agreed to inspections...It appears it is helping.

[LibertyorDeath]

41. "Why did all those Democrats vote for this?"

because the fix is in, has been for a long time...

It's good cop (dems) VS bad cop (rethugs)

both owned in their entirety by Corporate America.

Corporate America wants control & ownership of Iraq & Iran's Oil

who's going to stop them.

The fix is in........

[librechik]

27. yep--this made my jaw drop yesterday, but it has slipped under the door

and out of our consciousness.

[donkeyotay]

30. No wonder impeachment is off the table. We won't have time with WWIII nt

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

42. I think that's going to be the tone of 2008

and the Dems only have themselves to blame....

[ShortnFiery]

45. I despise "the gutless" more than my political enemies.

At least with our enemies, we know where the knives are coming from.

I'm 100% disgusted and not alone: Congress = 24% Approval Rating. :thumbsdown:

[glitch]

47. Every collaborator holds a special seat in Hell. nt

[RufusEarl]

39. Ever Senator, has a military industrial complex business in their district.

Ike tried to warn us, and now we're understanding what he was talking about.

[Richard Steele]

44. K&R

[wiggs]

46. Someone please post the legislative text portion that the OP refers to...

...I will be flabbergasted if the senate made that declaration without guarding the nation from GWB making this decision by himself.

If true, there should be 1000 responses to your OP, and there should be nothing else discussed on MSM or any other outlet. I'm embarrassed that I haven't seen anything on this until just now.

Please...someone debunk the OP.

[Blue_Roses]

50. The OP is somewhat "excited" and must have missed some vital

parts.

Lieberman Leads Way In Warning To Iran

Senate Shows Support In 97-0 Vote

By DAVID LIGHTMAN | Washington Bureau Chief
July 12, 2007



WASHINGTON - The Senate Wednesday put aside a growing schism over the conduct of the Iraq war and rallied around a strongly-worded warning to Iran authored by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman.

The measure, an amendment to the defense spending bill, illustrates both growing concern lawmakers have about Iran's aggression and uncertainly about what to do. It passed in a 97-0 vote after Lieberman agreed to include a provision that nothing in his measure "shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of armed forces against Iran."

Lieberman has been almost a lone Senate voice in recent weeks protesting Iran's actions against American troops, suggesting that the U.S. should be prepared to use military force if necessary. Congress is not prepared to go that far at this point, but members did want to make a strong, bipartisan statement.

--snip--

"There is no division when it comes to threats to the troops of the United States," Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said. "We want to make it very clear to the government of Iran that we speak as one when it comes to protecting those troops from those kinds of threats."
more...

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-iran0712.artjul12,0,3251634.story

[wiggs]

58. I read the amendment (see other post) and I'm sorry to say that

it's close to being as bad as the OP makes it seem. There's a lot of scary stuff in there..inflammatory language, conclusions based on unofficial comments (like...one general says it's hard to believe that the Iranian President isn't aware of programs to help insurgents, etc). It talks of murder of US forces. I don't like it at all and it's no comfort that there's a sentence stating that this amendment is not authorization to use force. The amendment does not require GWB to come to congress before acting.

[Emit]

88. And, furthermore, here's a letter from the White House to Levin related to the matter

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-1/s1547sap-s.pdf

Originally posted here: http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/12/bush_to_veto_any_iraq_or_iran_amendments_in_defense_bill

From the second link, tpmcafe.com:

President Bush will veto any and all measures put forth by Congressional Dems to halt the Iraq War, according to a little-noticed letter from the White House to Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The letter also says that the White House will veto any measure that would tie its hands on Iran -- including on military action inside that country.

~snip~

And then there's this on Iran. It appears Bush doesn't want his hands tied in either dovish or hawkish ways. Of course, you can guess which one he emphasizes:

The Administration strongly opposes amendments to the bill that to restrict the ability of the United States to deal effectively with the threats to regional security posed by the conduct of Iran, including Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The Administration also notes that provisions of law that purport to direct or prohibit international negotiations, covert action, or the use of the armed forces are inconsistent with the Constitution's commitment exclusively to the presidency of the executive power, the function of Commander-in-Chief, and the authority to conduct the Nation's foreign policy. If the bill were presented to the President with provisions that would prevent the President from protecting America and allied and cooperating nations from threats posed by Iran, the President's senior advisers would recommend he vetoed the bill.

[wiggs]

91. that's frightening. I suppose congress responded with vigor, denying that

the president exclusively has the power to use armed forces any way he wants?

[wiggs]

48. Here's the link to the amendment. Filled with hearsay...

http://iranlegislation.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/DAV07990_xml.pdf

[wiggs]

52. DUrs and others will hopefully look at all the quotes and speculation and

find the originals to determine context. I bet there are rebuttals to many of the statements contained in the amendment...yet the amendment quotes them as fact.

How frightening and disappointing.

I will suggest, going on memory, that the original IWR contained conditions that needed to be met in order for GWB to take action on Iraq...the WH wrote a letter supposedly meeting the conditions and just quoted some of congresses "suppositions" and "assumptions" as findings of fact. This amendment lays the groundwork for similar abuse. More on the IWR conditions can be found in Worse than Watergate.

[wiggs]

55. On the bright side (if there is one), this amendment is not

official until the entire defense bill is approved, right?

[Nunyabiz]

57. Like I been saying for over a year now

There is only ONE way this BS is ever going to stop and that is for WE THE PEOPLE to take this country back and I mean by force.
Until we do then nothing is going to change and we are going to war with Iran and will most likely end up self destructing within the next 10 years or less.
These nut bag pretend democrats "Clinton, Obama" are no different than the Neofascist other than maybe they are not insane like all the rethuglicans are but policy wise they are virtually the same.

There are only 2 REAL democrats running (Kucinich, Gravel), if you are a democrat then you need to vote for them or vote Green.

[wiggs]

59. Force won't work. nt

[Nunyabiz]

64. Like hell it wont

at this it is the ONLY thing that will.

[conspirator]

80. It's the only language bullies understand. And force is pretty much working for BushCo and big oil

they are filling their pockets as never before.

[wiggs]

85. You have more and bigger weapons than the government? nt

[Nunyabiz]

87. Yes, its called 300,000,000 angry Americans

all armed to the teeth, this mess could be over in a 3 day weekend if everyone just got off their butt and did something.

[conspirator]

98. I don't think we would even need to pick up guns. A good old riot like in France

destroying corporate property and burning cars in mass scale would change things immediatly.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. Oh boy! More flagwaving and "toughness" from our heroic senators.

"If they want peace, nations should avoid the pin-pricks that precede cannon shots." - Napoleon Bonaparte

[eridani]

68. The pro-Iranian faction in Iraq fucking CONTROLS the place--

--at least to the extent that it can be controlled. Why would Iran be making war on its own strategic allies?

[NuttyFluffers]

74. well that's too bad. and i was really getting attached to the idea of a recovering america

if we go forward with this it will be the unpardonable death sentence for our 'grand experiment'. oh well... :shrug:

[theHandpuppet]

79. Yep, Nikki, and that's why I am so disillusioned

And the next war won't be long in coming.

[Tom Rinaldo]

81. Wes Clark and Dennis Kucinich talk sense about Iran

However, no offense to Dennis, but the Democrat best positioned to fight the insanity of pushing war with Iran right now is General Wes Clark. Clark has the background and experience, and the creds gained as an American patriot who dedicated his life to keeping America safe from foreign threats, to be listened to by the broad range of Americans, both inside and out of postions of power, who have to be reached to stop this madness. And Wes Clark has tirelessly been using his influence to oppose the Neocon orchestrated push for war with Iran.

Clark took on two advocates for bombing Iran recently on MSNBC's Kudlow & Co:

"GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Larry, the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein done by the Bush administration was a victory for Iran. HE was their big enemy. We got rid of him. We did the Iranians a huge favor. Now, the truth is that Iran came, has come to us at least three times since 2002 looking for an opening and a way to talk, and we've rebuffed them. So, we haven't tried diplomacy. This administration's not trying. This administration is-

Jed Babbin: (sigh)

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -on a countdown, and here's what's waiting at the end of the road: a nice air strike, 14 days or so of air strikes, Special Forces operations. We've already got SF going in there. We've got over-flights, at least that's what I'm told. So, we're, as far as the Iranians are concerned, we're doing to them what they're-

Jed Babbin: (sigh)

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: doing to us. And at the end of it, if we are able to execute this strike and we've really got Iran then up in arms against us, what is accomplished other than a five year or so delay in the nuclear.

Jed Babbin: Well-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We don't have the capacity to occupy Iran. We don't have to capacity to calm down the Islamic world after the strike."
http://securingamerica.com/node/2530

And when advocates for military action against Iran attempt to exploit any indication of Iranian involvement inside of Iraq that is adversarial to American efforts there, Wes Clark has the guts to turn the tables and point out how the United States is already supporting conducting operations against Iran, and that the United States gives Iran every incentive to make Americans lives hell inside Iraq because the Bush Administration has long made it clear that their true intention has always been to overthrow Iran's government. Wes Clark recently made this comment in reply to that type of accusation against Iran on Diane Rehm's PBS show 7/12/07:

"GENERAL WESLEY CLARK We've known from the beginning that when we went into Iraq, as we told everybody, including a lot of the NeoCons who testified before Congress that Iraq was just the first step. So we gave Iran and Syria every reason to oppose us. If you were in the Iranian's position right now, you'd see themselves surrounded by US forces with US aircraft carriers there, an insurgency trying to be fomented from Baluchistan which would be hard-pressed not to blame on the United States, the continuing rumors of special forces operations inside Iran and perhaps overflights from unmanned aerial vehicles."
http://securingamerica.com/node/2544

Clark is constantly blasting the Bush Administration for refusing to engage in real negotiations with Iran, and he always points out that the U.S. has more than enough cards to play without being forced to use military force. He made the following comment during a speech at UCLA's Law School in January:

“We need to keep the threat of Iran in perspective. And in dealing with them we have to realize that we are the most powerful country in the world. We have incredible economic strength. We hold the key to the G-8, the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund...the key to advanced technology, energy development—We have that. So when I hear rumors that the President is unable to talk to Iran right now because we don’t have “leverage”...

--- If you have 1000 feet of leverage – do you need another half inch?

We have 1000 feet of leverage over Iran. We’re completely dominant over the country. Cant the most powerful nation in the world deign to speak to an aspiring regional power?"
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10663

Clark is the only Democrat I know willing to tell the American people the hardships they will face if we get dragged into a larger Middle Eastern War. Clark said this in July of 2006 in front of a live FOX TV audiance:

"If you agree with people, the diplomacy is different. When you don’t agree with people, it’s even more important to talk, to box them in, to understand what they want, to help them see the world differently. Keep the force in reserve. Otherwise, you’re just going to end up raising a 10-million man army to invade the Middle East and that’s something we don’t want the United States to do and I don’t think your viewers want all their children to spend the rest of their lives in uniform."

You can view the longer exchange on YouTube. It's worth watching:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N79-4cyqfl0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enewshounds%2Eus%2F2006%2F07%2F24%2Ffox%5Fundercuts%5Fwesley%5Fclarks%5Fsane%5Fwords%2Ephp

[EFerrari]

82. The human race seems suicidal at times. I don't know how I

missed this yesterday. How depressing.

[tomp]

83. i'm going to say it once again.

u.s. imperialism is BIPARTISAN foreign policy. the job of politicians is to make you think there's a difference between the parties. they're doing a good job if du is any evidence.

[dweller]

84. tidbits

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1331647#1331925

dp

[uppityperson]

86. Well I trust my congresspeople because they must have info I don't have

:sarcasm: kidding. the whole thing pisses me off and scares me and I don't scare easily. I am uneasy at the end of this administration's term approaching and really really hope we can get them out without the shit hitting the fan more.

[JacquesMolay]

90. Ah, the Senate. Land of THE SYSTEM.

Where aside from the odd scrap over abortion or flag-burning, people just get along and share the same values.

[Moochy]

93. Tragedy of Comity

:-(

[defendandprotect]

96. You need three big wars simultaneously to avoid impeachment ---

unless you're a president with a SURPLUS and PEACE and REFUSING TO ATTACK IRAQ . . . then they impeach your penis!!!

[antimindcrime]

97. *important* N/T

[scarletwoman]

99. kicking this out from the memory hole... (nt)