Former Dem presidential contender Wesley Clark: We should ‘talk’ with Ahmadinejad

Posted by: ST on January 24, 2007 at 11:38 am

I watched this last night on Hannity and Colmes and wanted to blog about it, so I’m glad to see that Ian at Hot Air has posted a video of this clueless wonder’s comments on how we should ‘talk’ with Ahmadinejad, the Islamofascist Holocaust denier who believes Israel should be wiped off the map, and who believes the US and Israel will “soon be destroyed”. Make sure to watch the whole thing, as Clark apparently believes that we could actually engage in a meaningful dialogue with this modern day version of Hitler.

Clark has also recently asserted that our foreign policy towards Iran is being dictated by wealthy NY Jews. Jon Chait, famous for writing a piece about why he hates the President, tackles Clark’s assertion here.

In related news on Iran, the MSM/Dem push to declare the threat from Iran and other Middle East enemies are as “overhyped” and/or “flawed” in description has started, first with this piece from yesterday’s LA Times that quotes “critics” as saying there is “scant” evidence of an Iraq-Iran arms link (which the liberal blogosphere, of course, seized upon like a hungry dog would chew on a picked-over chicken bone) and this piece in today’s Washington Post, which Warner Todd Huston at Newsbusters dissects here.

Democrats, in working hand in hand with their cohorts in the press, seem almost eager to severely limit the President’s options in dealing with a threat Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) says is being portrayed by the admin in the same way the Dems believe he portrayed the threat from Iraq – a clear implication that he believes the administration is lying.

I wonder just how long it’ll be before we find out that Senator Rockefeller visited allies of Ahmadinejad in the Middle East to inform them of what he believes the admin’s plans are for Iran, like he did back in January 2002 when he visited Iraq’s ally Syria and alerted a high ranking government official there that thought we were planning on attacking Iraq?

RSS feed for comments on this post.

29 Responses to “Former Dem presidential contender Wesley Clark: We should ‘talk’ with Ahmadinejad”


  1. Severian says:

    Argh, not the “it’s the Jooooo’s who are doing this” meme again! What in the world is wrong with the Democrat party. And what is wrong with the majority of Jews in this country that they continue to support a party that is full of anti-Semites?

    I have no confidence that Rockefeller and/or other Dems didn’t make world tours of the region and attempt to sell us out to our enemies in exchange for help winning the election, as they attempted to do with the Soviets. It’s telling when a major political party views the other party as a bigger threat than our acknowledged enemies. l-)

  2. Tom says:

    I’m no diplomat or historian, but I recall we spoke with the USSR all through the cold war years. We were talking to Vietnam through that conflict. We were talking to Korea all through those years. I believe we even had dialog going with Hitler and Japan during WWII. We had dialog with saddam before desert storm and this latest war. So it seems dialog has been a major component used in the puzzle of geo-political relationships. It may not always (or ever) work, but it appears to be a part of the overall effort in dealing with friends or enemies. This situation with Iran should be no different.

  3. Leslie says:

    Still the same old story. When in doubt, blame the Jews. :-<

    Why should we talk with President Crackpot anyway? The real leaders of Iran are the Ayatollahs, so open a channel to them, if we must.

    That said, I have no objections to exploratory (I say, I say, suhs, exploratory) talks with Syria.


  4. Lorica says:

    Hey Wes, it takes 2 to tango. It is not like Ahmadinejad is all that anxious to ‘chat’ with us. Well not until he can prove he has a nuke.

    I don’t keep up with this guy as we have enough enemies within the boundries of the United States of America for me to really care about this door knob. – Lorica

  5. KatLady says:

    Tom is correct in that we did talk to the Soviets all though the Cold War, we talked even though they swore to destroy us. Why because unlike Iran, they quite possibly could have they at cetain points in that era had us seriously outgunned. As to Vietnam we did not talk to them until the unpopularity of the war threatened the GOP. Iran however even with nukes does not pose a serious threat to the US mainland and I suspect the current administration would love the “We told you so” factor in an attack on the EU. Besides there was not the financial (oil) angle in either Vietnam or the Soviets. This is a case of talk not being cheap to certain parties atleast.

  6. Ben says:

    Wait I thought Saddam was “the modern day version of Hitler”, or was it Kim Il Jong? or Castro? or The Taliban?

  7. carsick says:

    China had a Cultural Revolution and developed the bomb yet Nixon went there. All nation states have practical needs that take precedence over posturing rhetoric…or haven’t you witnessed that? These days, China has funded nearly 20% of our national debt. Iran is a small country with regional and international political enemies; as well up until a few years ago many conservatives were trumpeting it’s potential for democracy. Two thirds of their population is under the age of 30. We can work to engage them or we can make enemies of those 46 million or so young people.

  8. NC Cop says:

    We can work to engage them or we can make enemies of those 46 million or so young people.

    I agree with that carsick, but the question is HOW do we engage the population without the government knowing or being involved? I think if given the chance the people of Iran would like nothing better than to get rid of that idiot they have for president, but how do we do it?

    I would certainly love to hear some suggestions of what you say to the pres. of Iran. This man has denied the holocaust, sworwn to wipe Israel off the map, and believes it is his personal duty to bring about the apocolypse. So what exactly do you say to someone like that?

  9. Tom says:

    This man has denied the holocaust, sworwn to wipe Israel off the map, and believes it is his personal duty to bring about the apocolypse. So what exactly do you say to someone like that?

    Comment by NC Cop

    Excellent question. How about this: “Pull the pin on the grenade and hold it very close to your chest. Very soon you will be seeing Allah”. At least it would get the dialog started (after we sponged up the pieces).

  10. T Ray says:

    I wonder if the USA I grew up in hasn’t already been pushed to the edge if not off the map. You know the one that respected human rights, was strong enough to be firm without being savage, had habeas corpus…..
    It is strange when people look outside for the enemy when oft times the enemy is in the kitchen cookin’ up a little sometin’-sometin’

  11. carsick says:

    If we don’t talk to the government – I’m not saying we negotiate (unless something works for our interests) – but if we ignore the government we are essentially guaranteeing the status quo. That is not acceptable.
    Their president has his own internal problems due in part to the growing reform movement. I think we serve our purposes and his by sitting down privately and starting a conversation by saying, “A political vaccuum in Iraq is not good for Iran, the region or us. What are your thoughts on stabilizing the situation there?”
    That’s all. Just open a dialogue between diplomats and stop rattling swords in the press. Rattling swords may be a guarantee to quashing the reform movement there just as any nation attacked has a tendency to stop internal debate once they have an outside threat. They know we have a sword already, that’s why they would come to the table to talk.

  12. Lindata says:

    Basing our foreign policy on the notion that entire countries can be condemned and shunned because of their leadership is not getting us very far. We need to be talking to Iran to identify potential partners.

  13. carsick says:

    Oh, and as far as Rockefeller telling our nominal “allies” in the Middle East that his personal view was that the president was planning to attack: I doubt that information was treasonous in part because the president made it fairly clear to the world his intent in his SOTU that same month.

    President Bush: “And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country — your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)”
    He then went on to tell our military to prepare because “some crucial hours may lay ahead.”


  14. That comparison is BS on its face. There was NOTHING in that that stated the president was declaring war on Iraq.

    It never fails to amaze me the lengths that some liberals will go to try and the justify near-traitorous behavior of one of their own. Case in point.

  15. carsick says:

    Just read the speach. He was couching it a bit because he hadn’t actually told the military to attack yet. I said “his intent”.
    President Bush:”We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.”

  16. carsick says:

    Speech not “speach” typo.
    If you read Rockefeller’s comment he didn’t say the president had declared war either. He said he believed the president had made up his mind.

  17. The President made that speech in January 2003, not January 2002!

  18. carsick says:

    My mistake on the date. Still seems a bit of a stretch to call it treason or “near treason” unless the president had actually secretly declared war and then told Rockefeller about it. And then Rockefeller told those countries leaders. That would be treasonous.

  19. NC Cop says:

    Then the question arises, if an unstable Iraq is bad for Iran and Syria why are they pumping arms and terrorists into Iraq to destabilize it?????

  20. ibfamous says:

    You justify not talking to Iran because their president doesn’t believe in the holocaust. Our president doesn’t believe in dinosaurs or civil liberties so I guess we’re even.

  21. carsick says:

    NC Cop
    There is not enough evidence on the table for me to judge how much, if any, state support is coming from the Sunni dominated Syria or the Shia dominated Iran, just as the IRA still gets support from Americans (not America). I’m not sure how that affects Iran’s decision to sit down privately or not with representatives from the US.
    I came up with the intro to the question off the cuff. If you’d prefer, we could simply start the conversation by saying, “Whaddup with Iraq, Iran? Thoughts?”
    The point is the more we ignore them the more they seem to gain in perceived power whether illusion or real. Libya used to be an out and out enemy of the US too.

    Here’s an interesting conversation from a few years ago conducted by the Hoover Instsitute you may like to read. Oddly, it’s the same conversation we’re having today in many ways. Only we’re having it 4 years later and the non-diplomatic status quo has allowed things to get worse.

  22. NC Cop says:

    You justify not talking to Iran because their president doesn’t believe in the holocaust. Our president doesn’t believe in dinosaurs or civil liberties so I guess we’re even.

    Wow, what great insight?!


    Run along, ibfamous, the adults are talking.

    I know what you are saying carsick, but if you honestly believe that Iran and Syria do not have a hand in providing weapons and personnel to the insurgency you are just being naive.

    I read the article you posted and it was very interesting. It seems that you have one side saying that staying out of it is the best bet and one side saying intervene. So again, where does that leave us?

    The pres. of Iran seems to be on the verge of being insane with some of his comments. I don’t see a particularly productive dialogue coming from him.

  23. carsick says:

    As I read that article, I read “intervention” as a democracy building attempt to reach the people. I did not read it as military action. If we do not engage at all we will end up deciding that our only solution is a militaristic one. We don’t have the troops and air power alone may make some feel temporarily better but in the long run just create more enemies whether state oriented enemies or young people who dedicate their lives to revenging what we do there.
    Reading that article made me think of opportunities lost. A little conversation and a little less posturing and maybe the opportunities aren’t lost forever.
    Talk softly and carry a big stick. We’ve got the stick, we just ain’t talkin’.

  24. carsick says:

    Also, if Iran backs the Shia and Syria backs the Sunni then a completely destabilized Iraq will pull them into a regional religious war. And, as much as some of us would like to see them kill each other, I doubt Iran wants to go to war with Syria and I doubt our oil needs from the area will be served if the whole place goes up in flames. The Iranian leadership knows it is a fine line and that’s part of the reason they would like us (the US) to stay in Iraq. As a target and an excuse.

  25. iaintbacchus says:

    Ahmadinejad is NOT a modern day Hitler. Hitler, like it or not, was a world leader. Germany, proir to WWII had colonies all over the world and a GNP greater than England or France.
    I’m sure that Ahmadinejad would like to think of himself as a modern day Hitler. But what he is, is a fairly new president of a second rate regonal power with a population smaller than at least 2 of our states. He wouldn’t even have been elected to office in Iran if the clergy didn’t have final say on who gets to run.
    Every since I can remember Arab leaders have gotten mad and talked vainglorious, overblown nonsense for the television and newspapers. Remember Gadhafi? Or for that matter the Iraqi public information minister who was still predicting victory as US troops were entering the studio he was brodcasting from? It’s what they do. That doesn’t mean that at some point they won’t sit down and bargain. You just have to remember that they will always start from as unreasonable position as they can in order to have more room to “compromise”.

  26. carsick says:

    I know some of you see Senator Hagel as a turncoat or something but in the clip linked he makes a saliant argument about the role of debate over such important matters as war. Hang on ’til the end.

  27. carsick says:

    Saliant? Sorry, Salient. typos abound.
    It’s been fun NC Cop. Gotta go.

  28. dhonig says:

    This entry completely misrepresents what Clark said. Clark does not “believe[] that we could actually engage in a meaningful dialogue with this modern day version of Hitler.” Instead, he repeatedly, and quite pointedly, observed that Ahmedinejad is NOT the only person in Iraq, or even the personification of Iraq. Here is some of the interview:

    Sean Hannity: I don’t believe you can change he 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.

    and there was more:

    Sean Hannity: 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.

    As Hannity refused to get the point, Clark repeated it again:

    Sean Hannity: He’s their voice.

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

    Ahmedinejad is not the only man in Iran, and he is not the only leader. While Iran is most certainly a terribly unpleasant, and anti-US, sort of place, it is not a dictatorship, and Ahmedinefad is not all-powerful. Hannity, and many here, insist of personifying Iran as him because it suits their purposes. But it is not only incorrect, it is intentionally misleading. This diary, too, is intentionally misleading, as Clark was repeatedly clear that he did not think the United States was required to talk to “that Holocaust denier,” but instead to approach Iran by other methods.

  29. Gus says:

    He’s not only not the only voice in Iraq, he is an obnoxious figurehead serving at the pleasure of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. I’m personally ambiguous about engaging Iran at this moment, as it seems that Ahmadinejad’s influence is on the wane, and reaching out to him may legitimize him. It seems to me that the other way to get the Iranian people to rally around him would be initiating a war.