Crazy talk from Edwards...

United States democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Edwards said that stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons "is the greatest challenge of our generation."

"Edwards on Iran, Again" By Drew

With link to Ezra's write up on his interview with Edwards, (I guess you got Clark, Matt, and he got Edwards).

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/3/1 21821/8733

"Edwards On Iran
TAP talks to John Edwards about America's foreign policy challenges in the Middle East."

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?sect ion=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId= 12434

These are good and informative for forming an opinion on Edwards' position. It is easy to jump on the he said, or whatever, but sometimes the true meanings do not come out in the bit mill pieces that get coverage.  I guess you might say that you can take any candidate and screw with the intent of their real meaning just like polls that are not true indicators.

Take it or leave it, read it and decide for yourself.  If you still have a low opinion of Edwards, then not much will ever change that, ever! IMO

Just read Digby.

Versailles is totally disconnected from the American people.  Versailles is asking why the American people hate America. Versailles has yet to understand the November elections yet.

All that's needed is a candidate who listends to America and pays no attention to Versailles.  Of course Versailles will hate their guts.  It's not 2004 anymore.  That hatred is a plus for any candidate adroit enough to realize it.

I totally agree with you and am consistently surprised and alarmed at the extent to which this essentially right-wing attitude, of the inherent right of the US to unilaterally apply military force against sovereign powers in the absence of a casus belli and formal declaration of war, has been accepted across the political spectrum.

C'mon folks, terrorism is a crime, albeit a heinous one, not an act of war, and we would all be better off to treat it as one.  And the very notion of a war on terror indicates how far we have strayed from prudent international affairs.  

I accept that US nuclear alert policy and planning, the SIOP and now OPLAN, for example, has never excluded a preemptive first strike on a nuclear power in the face of a strategic warning but the practical and political problems with that concept are so forbidding that it has kept that option off the table throughout the whole of the Cold War, and rightly so.  We have spent a fortune to develop and implement a launch-on-warning capability and maintain that alert status to this very day as a consequence.

And yet today, the options on the table for dealing with Iran, a nation at least two years away from nuclear capability with no foreseeable capability of ever using these weapons to strike US territory, seem to include a preemptive nuclear strike by common consent of leaders in both major political parties.  Well, in international law that is illegal.  If you want to protect Isreal, who would be directly threatened by Iran's nuclear capability, then negotiate a binding treaty of mutual defense with them and let Iran know that a nuclear strike on Isreal would result in a massive retaliatory strike by the US on Iran.  That is legally, diplomatically and morally acceptable and it is the obvious thing to do.  And it would work.  It is that simple.

The terrorist attack on the US was a terrible crime and if we had put the resources into a truly effective global counter-terrorism capability we would have the most effective tool for dealing with this problem and would have enjoyed the co-operation and respect of the world.  And probably have mitigated the problem so effectively that we could have turned our attention by now to the other issues which demand our attention and resources.  

But instead we are now preparing to repeat our past mistake.  Where is the leadership in this country?  This is absurd and speaks more to our helplessness than our strength.  C'mon America, show some courage on this.  We have allowed a climate of fear to so permeate our politics and policies that it is a global embarrassment.

Remember this guy?  He was right.

We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

FDR - President of the United States 1941

He better get started soon.  He is a good guy, that is for sure, but if he doesn't get money and some more press, he is going to have a long road to crime.  Too bad he hadn't gotten in the election in 2004 much earlier... He probably could have won the whole thing.

I still think the only way a war with Iran is authorized is if they attack us directly.

Great job Matt!

The biggest complaint people have about politicians is they always go with what's popular. Few have principles & even fewer would dare go out & speak against something unpopular.

This is the biggest criticism of the Clinton's. And in some respects, this is the problem with Edwards too on his Iraq vote. ( But again, any statewide or House Democratic politician in the South can understand the pressure of Southern Democrats. Its no coincidence that basically all Southern Senate Democrats voted for the war.
Same with Southern House Democratic members who were in swing districts)

As for Obama, granted he was against the war as a local politician- he was representing a very safe local pro-Democratic area. There were No Risk Implications whatsoever. He also did not have to vote since he was not in congress.

This is what impressed me the most about General Wes Clark. He was Front, Center, Left & Right on CNN, Fox, MSNBC speaking out loudly Agains the War during a time when " Public Opinion" were Pro-Iraq, Pro-Bush among all voters including a sizeable percentage of Democratic voters.

That's a True Leader! And during these times when War & National Security is at stake- a Person of Clark's knowledge, Experience, Leadership is PERFECT.

P.S. I was also so impressed with his  All-out support for Lamont during a time when Most Democratic Presidential candidates either supported Lieberman or remained silent.

A Southerner, A Gentleman, A Leader, and someone who fights for real people. He is a Precious Gift for the Democratic Party & America.

Many of us are Ready & Waiting patiently for Wes Clark.

They ALL want direct negotiations RIGHT NOW, TODAY, and they all want to begin those negotiations with all options on the table.

As should any such talks.

My dream ticket without Gore is Edwards/Clark. And if Clark doesn't get the top nominations, then I'd hope for him to be invited into the next administration as Secretary of State or Defense.

-GFO

1. Why do you support Clark for VP?

2. Does Edwards include the option of potentially deciding to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, or has he taken that option off the table?  If so, what do you think China, for example, thinks of Senator Edwards?

3. Same question as #2 but regarding Obama.

I fail to see how you can claim it to be a "simple fact" that those three "have the EXACT same position on Iran."  How did you reach that level of confidence?

Wes Clark is not only a brilliant military leader, he is a master at diplomacy.  He has more experience in both of those areas than Edwards and Obama combined.  There are negotiating strategies and international issues involved in this matter that neither Edwards nor Obama have ever encountered or, most likely, even considered.  

I think the difference is that Edwards and Clinton draw a line in the sand......"we will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons"

When Clark talks about it there is no line in the sand. In fact in a round table discussion at the Milken Institute he said that Iran with nuclear weapons would actually be less frightening than Iran threatening to get nuclear weapons.

Of course any diplomat has to say that all options are on the table. It's part of their "kit bag of carrots and sticks"  but nowhere will you find Clark saying that Iran must not be allowed to obtain weapons. He is no fan of America being backed into a corner and that's what leading Dems like Edwards and Clinton are doing right now. And may I add, making GWB very happy

The question is leadership, anticipating the right thing to do while there is the maximum amount of time availble to make it happen, and to stop the wrong thing from happening instead. Clark was warning against the fallacy of invading Iraq in the summer of 2002.  John Edwards was defending the invasion of Iraq months after the U.S. occupation began, even after no WMDs was found inside Iraq, not to mention co-sponsoring the worst version of an IWR that was considered by the U.S. Senate even though Edwards sat on the same Intelligence committee with Bob Graham. And if Hillary Clinton was speaking out against the rush to war with Iraq, I must have been in the shower and missed it.

Yes now most Democrats who supported going to war with Iraq, including John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, would now act differently if they had it to do again. In other words, given the passage of enough time you can say that their positions all became the same. Is that an appropriate standard for leadership; getting there eventually?

As Matt points out, Wes Clark got way out in front of most of the Democratic Party regarding Iran as well as Iraq.  Clark has worked tirelessly for years, to shift the debate within our Party (and beyond it through his FOX commentary) to reach the point we are at today; a consensus emerging among Democrats that the U.S. needs direct diplomatic engagement with Iran and Iraq.

On that many may now agree, but who provided the leadership?  To paraphase an old country song; Wes Clark pushed diplomacy when pushing diplomacy wasn't cool.

Haliography???

Did you even read Matt's diary?

Senator Edwards of the infamous 107th Congress not only voted in support of bush's IWR, he actually co-sponosored it with Lieberman.

All the while Clark was advising both houses' ASCs and anyone inside the beltway who would listen, against it.

Exactly the same? Clearly you haven't read Wes Clark's positions on Iran:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/1/1 15124/5806

Edwards "educating America"?

The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edward s_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

What does he need to 'teach America" exactly?  And why was he saying it to the right-wing Israeli crowd? and why has he refused to post his own speech on his own website?  Did he think we wouldn't notice?

Edwards doesn't have a good track record on matters of war and peace.  When given an opportunity in 2002 to follow Wes Clark's advice before the Senate, he took Bush's advice instead.

In watching the Senate debate over the IWR again a couple of days ago, I was reminded that Boxer and Wellstone and Kennedy quoted Clark as they voted "no" in 2002.

If they'd have listened to him then (we had a Senate majority, albeit a small one) it's possible that we wouldn't be in Iraq today.

Anyone who thinks Edwards, Obama and Clark have the same position on Iran doesnt' understand Clark's position at all and is just mouthing the words.

And with all the talk on this blog about "political courage," Wes Clark was about the only Dem (potentially) running for president who wasn't afraid to take on Lieberman.  This is the difference between empty rhetoric and substantive courage.

It was a great Ad, no mealy mouthed ambiguity about it.  Clark looked directly into the camera and went right at Lieberman.  After running down Lieberman's wrong judgement on Iraq, pointing out mistake after mistake, he laid it on the line; Re-Elect Joe Lieberman "There's a word for that, Mistake."

At that stage in the campaign when Clark filmed that Ad, which was after Lieberman had pulled ahead of Lamont, most but not even all leading Democrats (when we were lucky) were sticking to the standard "I support the nominee of our Party, Ned Lamont" talking point but not much beyond that.  They sure as hell didn't want to call out Joe Lieberman by name because Lieberman looked like he was winning.  

Clark didn't hesitate to call out Lieberman by name, it was the right thing to do, Lamont needed someone credible to do it, and Wes Clark was there for Lamont when Lamont needed him.

It's a great question.  Why couldn't military experience be his niche?  A commnder-in-chief that was a general?

And when we talk about experience, I'd suggest that, unlike Clark, few of these candidates are actually "experts" in any particular area.  Being a one-term senator, for example, doesn't give you a doctorate or professional experience in a particular issue or set of issues.    

Richardson is a good person and yes he has some foreign policy experience but you can not compare that to what Clark has.

I have to ask you, have you ever read much of Clark's policy papers, his bio, his past?

Here is Clark's old prez site. Check his info on the left:
http://clark04.com/index.html

Also go here and read away:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/blog/32

and here:
http://securingamerica.com/

Check the blog here:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/

Progressive Blue

Ike?

Progressive Blue

in addition to have the most impressive foreign policy credentials.  Did you see his economic policy in 2004.  No taxes for a family of 4 earning under $50k per year - 1/3 of people would pay no income tax.  Pretty impressive, I'd say.

Read his position papers at securingamerica.com and let us know what you think.

Actually, Clark is remarkably knowledgable and experienced in many areas other than military and foreign policy.  For example, of all the potential candidates, Clark is second only to Gore, concerning the environment and the need to take serious action to prevent catastrophic climate change.  And of all the potentially electable candidates, Clark is the only one who says that we must move towards single-payer health insurance.  Clark has a masters degree from Oxford University in Economics and he has worked as a White House Fellow in the Office of Management and Budget.  Clark is an educator as well.  He taught Philosophy at West Point and is currently a Professor at UCLA.  Clark really does have wide ranging experience in many matters, some of it aquired while in command of very large and complex military bases in the USA and in Europe, and some of it aquired in the private sector. Those are just a few things you should consider before saying that, "All of the other candidates have far more experience than Clark on every other issue outside of the military."

I mean no disrespect to Wes Clark, who I feel is an intelligent and worthy candidate, but ...

Could someone explain to me his niche?

How 'bout this niche: when you hear him speak, you realize how lame everyone else is?

Now, I realize he's not the greatest orator in the world.

Just remember, Lincoln was only regarded as a so-so orator in his day.

But what he said had staying power.  And Clark has plenty of time for the power of his ideas to sink in and take root.

I can and will answer your question, but before I do I want to comment on the entire concept of niches first.  In doing so I am not just responding to you. and I'm not assuming that you would disagree with me on this, but the criteria for selecting a President has to be far more profound than the criteria for secting what type shop to open in an open store front at a mall.
It's not like saying Burger King should stay out because there already is a McDonalds doing business there.

Just because two or more people can persuasively claim that they are experts in foreign relations doesn't mean that we sudently have niche redundancy.  It's not exactly like "This town ain't big enough for two candidates who have a clue about North Korea".  We are electing a person to be President, not just a data base, and may the best man or woman win.

First off I disagree strongly with you supposition that all of the other candidates have far more experience that Clark on every other issue outside of the military.  There is no magic dust that makes someone who gets elected to a poltical office suddenly well experienced in anything, other than the political processs of getting elected, and keeping enough people with money happy enough with them so that they can collect more money for their next campaign.  

There are many fine politicians who do develop great familiarity and even expertise in one or more issues, but that isn't necessarily what gets them elected or reelected.  It is the staff that politicians get paid to hire who often possess the real expertise. Those are the ones who actually draft legislation, if it isn't actually drafted by some special interest lobbyist who then hands it to some politician to sponsor.  Most legislators don't acutally read most legislation that they vote on.

In my life I have seen far too many movie actors wrestlers, quaterbacks, business men and trial lawyers waltz directly into some high political office for me to think that having been elected to something is any good measure of how experienced a person is. Too often it's who you know and how skillfully you pander that leads to politcal success.

First off, aside from his military career Wes Clark is somewhat of an expert on political science, philosophy and economics, with multiple Masters from Oxford gained while he was a Rhodes Scholor.  Clark was an instructor at West Point in some of those fields.  Clark posesses a good deal of knowledge that is relevent to governing.

You may or may not have heard that when Wes Clark spoke at Yearly Kos, it was as a member of the science panel, and he absolutely wowed people there with his complex understanding of technological, biological, and environmental issues.  Clark gave a detailed presentation without resorting to prepared statements or notes.  He knows his stuff. Clark is a rabid reader, speaks four languages, travels extensively and personally knows world leaders in a broad range of fields.

For the last 6 or 7 years since retiring Wes Clark has been in the private sector, earning a living as a businessman. There are those who claim that professional politicians often don't understand business, especially small business, from the inside, but Wes Clark does. One of the business ventures Clark was deeply involved in was a firm he joined at startup headed by James James L. Witt, Clinton's FEMA director. They specialized in disaster preparation and emergency response, and unlike the current FEMA, what they had to offer and what they did offer was highly regarded.

Wes Clark has high level executive management experience from the Commands he held while in the military. There is military experience, and there is executive experience, and they overlap, but they are not one and the same.  Some of the U.S. Senators and ex-Senators running in the current Democratic field lack executive experience completely. Clark's responsibilities for his Commands included overseeing education health and housing for the troops under his command and for their families.

Like Bill Richardson, Wes Clark was personally deeply involved in intense high level diplomacy, helping to directly broker the Dayton Accords.  You may say that all of the other candidates have far more experience that Clark on every other issue outside of the military, but I don't see it. I don't see how seriving one undistinguished (other than cosponsorhip of the IWR and Patriot Acts) term in the U.S. Senate, over half of which was actually devoted to running for President, or serving a few terms in a State Legislature, followed by two years sitting in the U.S. Senate qualifies as possessing vast experience on the issues confronting America.

Wes Clark fits the definition of a true intellectual.  He studies a broad range of issues, he is a deep student of many fields and brings to the table a more profound understanding of the full range of challanges now facing America than any other Presidential candidate running, of course in my own humble opinion.

As for a special niche all of Clark's own?  I think Clark's experience in international affairs, including directly running NATO's first and very successful War having to achieve consensus among the sovereign Heads of State of every NATO member for every significant move, coupled with Clark's prior diplomatic experience in Bosnia, puts Wes Clark at the very least in Richardson's direct hands on experinece class.  But of course Wes Clark aces military strategic planning also.  

There are no other Democrats running for President who are veterans, other than Chris Dodd's stint in the Rserves.  That is a different distinction than having national security creds, that is having street creds with a major American political constituency that essentially no other Democrat running for President this time can claim.  And Wes Clark combines strong support from many progressives because of his stance on issues important to Democrats, with strong appeal in moderate and conservative leaning districts all across America.  

Because Wes Clark wore the uniform of his nation for several decades, a lot of Democrats who are wary of "liberals" have no problem embracing Wes Clark. Wes Clark was eagerly sought as a campaigner in the midterm elections by both Harold Ford and Ned Lamont.  That says something about the range of Wes Clark's appeal that few if any other Democrats can match. In fact Wes Clark was the most sought after Democrat to campaign in Red State Congressional Districts, yet his progressive netoots appeal remains quite high.

Figure out whatever niche James Webb fills in Democratic politics today, and that would make a good approximation of the niche that Wes Clark can claim for 2008.

He is a strong leader and to make it to his level, he knows how to handle a bueracracy.. important skills in Washington.

Now this isn't an accusation that you're a troll, but it is a suspicion.  Because I feel like I saw the exact same phrasing about "can somebody explain his niche"?  all polite-like just a few days ago on another pro-Clark post.

The presidency is an executive office, one should have executive experience. That is why governors are favored over senators; they know how to run large organizations.

Generals with major commands are responsible for housing, policy, schools, and they have to do while running an army and lobbying congress for what their people need. Gert Clark ran a free service to help soldiers and their families straighten out their finances. If they are good at what they do, then they must be able to do it all.

There is a difference of course, they do not have to attend fundraisers. They get and keep their jobs on merit.

Remember Katrina? Who came into bogged down New Orleans, took one look, and immediately took charge to bring order out of chaos? Answer: General Honore.

They correct question is what have some of these candidates run?  

From the Winter DNC Meeting speech:

"And I grow angry with elected officials who've dragged this country deeper and deeper into Iraq when there are so many other urgent problems abroad and at home.

And I ask, can't we do better?
...
So I know what it is to plan and prepare for war. To send the cream of our youth on a mission from which they may not return. I know first hand the struggles of domestic politics and international diplomacy. I know how difficult it is to accomplish peace once the shooting stops.

I've done coalition building, peacekeeping, and post-war reconstruction. And this administration has failed in everyone of those things and that failure jeopardizes American security and the welfare of every single American.

The course, right now we're hearing from every politician on this, even some of the war's staunchest supporters are admitting they were wrong. And others now call for poll-tested positions.

I speak to you today as the only person who will take this podium before you to actually have done the things we need to succeed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world."

And you would equate the experiences of Hillary, Obama or Edwards to this?

His niche is the ability to lead in the fight for progressive ideas. He willnot back down when progressives in his party are attacked. I have seen the Schumers and Hillary who hail from blue states unwilling or unable to defend attacks on progresssives in their own party while Wes Clark doesn't take such attacks lying down even when a right wing but tries to disarm with talk like "Wes, you are OK by me, but man, some of the people in yourparty like Soros, hmm, nuttyyy".

He is articulate. A president does not have to have a niche. He should be able to pick the right people and be a leader,

If Hagel somehow manages to win the Republican nomination, I think Clark is the only Democrat who could beat him.

1. I highly doubt Edwards would ever attack Iran, except for a possible air strike a la the Sudan bombings in 1998.

2. I also doubt Iran would cut off the oil in the gulf because most of that oil does NOT come here but goes instead to Europe which has maintained relatively good relations to Iran. I also don't think Iran would want to risk the complete unification of all Sunni countries against them (which is already slowly but surely occurring).

A recent interview with Edwards on Iran suggests he's well aware of the dangers of a war with Iran, and that he's very motivated to avoid one.

This post is Clark-fluffing, coming, as it usually does, at the expense of other candidates specifically and the truth generally.

The important things is Clark is working day and night to try to avoid a military conflict with Iran.  He is on Pelosi's speed dial.

He has so far DELAYED his entry into the presidential race just so that he could help work out the Democratic policy on the war.  He said that he didn't want his message to be viewed as political, which would have occurred has he been a declared candidate.

Clark knows diplomacy.  He helped work out a peace agreement in the Balkans and he can do it in Iraq and Iran.

With regards to national security, nobody has anything on Clark.  He is by far the most qualified, and the most wise, of all the candidates in either party.  That's just the plain truth.  It's almost indisputable, IMHO.

You've evidently missed the point.  Clark has ruled nothing out.  But Edwards (for example) appears to have publicly ruled out the possibility of negotiating a regional solution that allows Iran to have nuclear weapons.  Edwards position may sound good to most Americans and some Israelis, but it does not get Iran to the negotiating table.  In fact, it angers the entire Muslim world (including many in nuclear armed Pakistan), and no one knows for certain how it plays in the top governmental levels in China.  So, Edwards has already eliminated his chance to negotiate successfully, and if he keeps his promises, that means he will attack Iran to prevent them from aquiring nuclear weapons.  So, what if the Pakistani government changes, and they decide to sell nuclear weapons to Iran?  Do we also go to war with Pakistan?  

Furthermore, Clark has been on FOX News, debating with Hannity, O'Riley and the rest of those nitwits, strenuously asserting that the U.S. must talk to Iran NOW to avoid a military conflict.  That in itself is more than any other candidate has done.

Wow, is that ever pessimistic!  We have nothing to fear by talking to Iran, and we have much to possibly gain.  As Wes Clark says, 'We talked to the Soviet Union when they had nuclear missiles aimed at every major American city', so why not talk to Iran when they don't even have any such missiles or nuclear weapons?

Clark understands perfectly the differences. Watch or read the transcript of his exchange with Hannity on 1/23/06:

~ snip ~

Sean Hannity: But do you...I agree with that, but do you really believe there's even a smidgen of hope that the Holocaust denier, that the guy that threatens the US and Israel, do you really believe this madman is somebody that ultimately can be persuaded?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well I don't think he's the only...Sean, he's not the only guy in Iran. I mean there are a lot of people in Iran who are...who really want to see a change in the situation in the region. We've got to reach around Ahmedinejad one way or another. We've got to show a different vision for the region. We've got to help those in Iran who want a different vision in the region come forward. That's our obligation as the most powerful country in the world.

Sean Hannity: I think the single best security we will have against Iran is to have the biggest, strongest, toughest military and the means to back it up. Let me ask you this, sir. You said, you said...

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well you know the military is the last resort.

Sean Hannity: I agree. You said

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: If we could change people's mind without using the military, we'll all be a lot more secure.

Sean Hannity: I don't believe you can change the mind of a madman like Ahmedinejad. I think that's false hope.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I don't think he's the only guy in charge, Sean.

Sean Hannity: Well I think it's false hope and naïve.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think you're making the same mistake we made with Saddam. I think you're trying to personalize a country around a single person.

Sean Hannity: I'm not. I'm not, but he's their leader.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: and that was the mistake in Iraq.

Sean Hannity: He's their voice.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: He is one voice in Iran. That's all...

http://securingamerica.com/node/2163

Ya know, when Krushchev said, "We will bury you," a lot of people thought talking to the Soviet Union was useless too.  But we had leaders (like Ike) who were wiser and eventually the Soviet Union crumbled from within.

Change is coming from within Iran too.  If we can talk long enough to allow social and economic forces to take hold, we may never need to have a military confrontation.  But the more belligerent we act toward Ahmedinajahd, the more it strengthens his hand within Iran, and the more it damages those who oppose him.  They have an even worse problem than we do of being accused of being "unpatriotic" for opposing their own government.

The idea that Iran could just hand over nukes to a terrorist group is ludicrous.  If you think they can just stuff one in a suitcase, you watch too many movies.  Even if Iran intended to launch its own missile at Israel, it could be detected in time to prevent.  We're basically talking about a technology that dates back to the 1960s.

Clark does not think that diplomacy is useless, and with good reason. Once when Hannity blovated that Iran would not talk, Clark said, "Well, they talk to me."

Believe it or not, Iran doesn't want to be bombed, and there is much that Iran wants.

I don't remember anyone saying that it was useless to talk to the Soviet Union, a real threat.

I think that the dynamics of the race are something to discuss, and they can get worrisome.  In 2004, Clark's entry into the race really hurt Edwards, and once Clark was in the race, Edwards hurt Clark's chances of winning.  They tend to subtract from each other.  

I fear that if Clark enters the race this time, the "not Hillary Clinton" portion of the electorate will fragment even further.  That may allow her to appear to "win" states with only 30% of the vote.  It may lead to Kerry II all over again.  :(  

I think a lot of it WAS about Iran.  Clark had to know the AIPAC thing was going on the night before.  

I've come to suspect it was intended to be a reminder to at least 2 of the 'already announced' candidates that our men and women are not toy soldiers and to take a hard-line right-wing stand on Iran may commit us to regional war.

Go back and read his speech again with that in mind.

Everyone apparently except Senator Obama.

That card was raised when there was still 1 minute remaining.  I don't think Clark went much beyond that.

Your post was very thoughtful and I agree this whole Iran issue requires a thorough critique.  But there is one point you made which I particularly want to consider, namely, so what if Iran did acquire a nuclear weapons capability?

I will be Satan's advocate here for a moment.  So what if they did?  North Korea did and the world didn't stop spinning on it's axis.  Even General Clark has considered this as a possible, though obviously not the most attractive, option.  During the Cold War the Soviet Union had this capability and then China did too.  A preemptive first strike against these nations was rejected by our leaders at a time when the threat to the US was far more real than the one posed by Iran today.  What really is the actual threat?  Is it Isreal?  There are potentially other ways to protect Isreal.  Is it just a matter of prestige?  I don't accept that Iran is any more likely to use a nuclear weapon than any other second class nuclear power on Earth.  Am I missing something which is not just inflamatory rhetoric?

I take your point that Isreal and other Gulf states have a greater risk in this, although Isreal is the only one who has put forward the existential argument, and it is interesting to note the Gulf states, the GCC, have proposed peaceful nuclear programs in the last few months.  We can see where this is heading.

But really, where is the evidence that the old Cold War policy of Mutually Assured Destruction or some variation of that theme is no longer operant?