Wesley Clark

Talk to Iran, Don’t Bomb Them


Gen. Wesley Clark, former supreme allied commander of NATO, Democratic presidential candidate and author of A Time to Lead: For Duty, Honor and Country, explains why he thinks Iran should be denied the ability to produce nuclear weapons (which they don’t even have anyway), but that Bush should talk with them instead of starting another war, U.S. control of oil resources, why the War Party has no legitimate claim on the exclusive ability to support the troops and why they fight.

MP3 here. (19:05)

During thirty-four years in the United States Army Wesley K. Clark rose to the rank of four-star general as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. After his retirement in 2000, he became an investment banker, author, commentator, and businessman. In September 2003 he ran as a Democratic candidate for President of the United States.

19 thoughts on “Wesley Clark”

  1. Wait a minute! Isn’t this the same clown who vigorously wanted to attack Serbia? He didn’t have a problem obeying orders outside of any mandate or charter and bombing kids in their beds, but now, all of a sudden, he’s proclaiming we shouldn’t be bombing Iran? I agree that we shouldn’t, any sane man would, but it all stinks to high heaven.

    1. I wouldn’t take the fact that Charles or Scott has interviewed someone as an endorsement of that person’s beliefs or record. Take this, for instance.

      1. Matt, I agree that an interview should not be construed as an endorsement etc., but the fact remains that these elitist automatons are never held accountable, much less reminded, of their many past atrocities. Was there some sort of “Damascus road experience” where they were shown the errors of their way and repented or do they simply talk and act as though those things never happened and merrily move onto bigger things to babble about. Some sort of reality distortion field has got to be in operation here.

  2. Mr clark has got no idea of what hes talking about when he says iran is after Mekkah.Im a Muslim and i can tell you,saudi arabia is Sunni Muslim and is very,very revered.shia are a minority in the Muslim world,the Sunni have a way bigger majority,i keep up with G.W.Bulshit and TWAT (the war against terror) and ive never heard any shia say anything like that,they would be wiped out wherever they are.Iraq is a tiny,tiny taste of war between Sunni & shia.Mr clark,i used to like you but after this,you’ve got crap for brains and you have crap coming out your mouth.

  3. indeed it is! He still considers himself a hero for the Kosovo campaign, which of course looks successful in comparison with Iraq or Afghanistan, at least from a military standpoint.

    But his assertions about Iran reflect typical official U.S. paranoia: that Iran is hell-bent on attacking us and/or our allies and that they would be so foolish as to “give” a nuclear weapon to some “terrorist group”. Sorry, I don’t buy it.

    1. No state works hard at developing a nuclear weapon, only to give it to non-state terrorist groups. What every nuclear state has in common is tight controls on every stage of the nuclear program. We can expect the same from Iran. They sure won’t be giving the nuke to their arch-enemies, the Sunni fanatics of Al Qaeda.

      All the anti-Iraq drumbeat has drowned out the facts: 300 Israeli nuclear bombs and over 8,000 US nuclear warheads. If these are safe, why is Iran’s program unsafe? It’s pure racism.

  4. …and I don’t necessarily agree with the assumption that Hezbollah and Hamas are any more terroristic than the Israeli government. They have a lot in common: both theocratic with a strong bent toward social services to shore up their base.

  5. I thought overall is was a good interview. Gen Clark did reiterate the fact the administration should use diplomacy before military options and complete lack of effort in Iraq.

    After all these years i am still perplexed as why the United States chickenhawks are so paranoid about other countries possesing nukes, when indeed we are the only country to have ever unleashed them on another country that resulted in much death and chaos? Also one caller pointed out that many injured soldiers desire to return to Iraq. Is that due to great pain-killers they are consumming under continous medical care or maybe some financial contributions made to them???

  6. Congratulations to Charles Goyette for the handling of this interview.

    He was polite, but didn’t waste any time on secondary issues; he cut right to the final question of ‘why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear weapons’.

    Clarke had obviously prepared and answer for this but you heard him stumble a bit due to the directness and persistence of Mr. Goyette’s questioning.

    Clarke’s choice of answers were revealing. He tried to make the case for why Iran in particular must be prevented from gaining nuclear weapons, rather than making the argument that the US wants to support non-proliferation in general. If you listen closely you can hear a bit of a stammer as he puts forth his arguments for why Iran in particular must be denied the bomb at all costs. When he claims they must be prevented from becoming a stronger regional power, he carefully avoids bringing up the underlying reasons for why the prospect of why the prospect of a nuclear Iran merits all the concern.

    There are two doctrinal pillars that underly his position (and that of most Democrats and Republicans). The first is that the USA has some essential national interest to dominate that region of the world for mercantilist strategic control of its oil reserves. This is a highly bellicose position to take, because it asserts that the US must have its hands on the economic oxygen supply of other countries in the near-term, and it must threaten first, then bomb any country that even poses a challenge to this goal. However the benefits of this strategy only hold as long as the mideast remains a major oil supplier.

    The second pillar of his position is that the US must intervene and be prepared to commit violence in order to assure that Israeli domination of the region is never met by any nation even approaching military parity. Never mind that Israel,thanks to the German taxpayer, now has an unstoppable second strike capability sufficient to turn several of its neighbors into ‘glass craters’. That is not sufficient to this crowd. The doctrine states that they must have complete and utter impunity in their actions. Is th

    From the day JFK’s opposition to Ben Gurion’s bomb was shot-down, it has become difficult to keep these two doctrinal assumptions apart when examining motivations underlying US foreign policy. Is 40-50 years of oil domination worth going into global debt, and threatening the world by force of arms to forgive it? Is cementing Israel’s freedom to act unilaterally (without consideration of her neighbors) in the middle east really worth more millions dead?

    I do not think Mr. Clarke is a fool. His call for negotiations (which are not negotiations but absolute demands) before the use of force is more clever than simply bombing. It is our duty to inform people how this is not in fact the voice of prudence and good-faith, but rather only a slightly prettier facade to a diabolical plan.

  7. Gawd these elitists are disgusting. The only reason Clark is scared of Iran becoming a bully in the region because it will force the other bully to f@#$ off back across the Atlantic. And of course Israel will still be the big dog in that region.
    Also, I’m not sure about the Mecca issue being important. But at least Clark is mentioning the “O” word, albeit as a “P” word (petroleum/petrochemicals). You down wit OPP?
    In regards in Hamas and Hizballah, people can class them as “terrorists” but to me they are legitimate resistance AND are popularly elected. As others have said, are they any worse than the Israeli (or any) army? At least Hizballah and Hamas aren’t aggressive invaders.

    1. W. Clark is a war criminal. After his stint in the former Yugoslavia he is he is trying to remake his image as a peace maker over Iran… ?
      Give me a break!

  8. This is the same bastard that was at Fort Hood, Texas back in 1993, and was involved in lending military personnel and equipment to the feds to incinerate, burn, shoot, gas and bulldoze the Branch Davidians at Waco.

    His appointment to NATO was a reward for his cooperation in that act of murder.

    F*** him!

  9. Marina, Big M, Fred in Japan, Boris Petrovic,

    I stopped listening to Wesley Clark eons ago. Everyone else would be better off doing the same……………..

  10. All,

    Wesley Clark is merely a rightwing lunatic dressed as a Democrat…………..

  11. Canidate Michael Crosby ( dem )

    Bush seems to be the last one in line to get REAL intel and most of the people can see this now.

    I think it’s time to start using words like “HIGH” Treason concerning Republicans !!

  12. Wesley Clark represents a culture devoid of morality. He is a human cockroach that has cloaked the once respected uniform of an American officer in Eichmann’s morality and like Eichmann the sooner he is from the scene the better the human race.

Comments are closed.