Late Edition: Wes Clark talks to Blitzer
By Nicole Belle Monday Sep 17, 2007 11:50am(guest blogged by Bill W.)
Download | play 
Download | play
On Sunday's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Gen. Wesley Clark reflected on Gen. Petraeus' testimony on Iraq last week, the MoveOn ad controversy, and Clark's recent endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Having served as the NATO Supreme Allied Commander under Clinton from 97-00, during which he had to testify before a Republican led House and Senate about the conflict in Kosovo, Wesley Clark shares a seasoned perspective into last week's pro-surge sales-pitch by the White House, and offers up some real insight into where we are in Iraq today and where he thinks we ought to be headed.
Download | play Download | play
He then talks candidly about the need for broad diplomatic efforts in the middle east, including Iran. Just as several new reports over the weekend asserted that the White House is considering military strikes against Iran, Clark's sober assessment of the overall picture of the situation really is in Iran and how we ought to be dealing with them couldn't be more different and reassuring. He was also asked about this damning passage in his new book, " A Time to Lead." about the neo-con underpinnings for the Bush administration's war in Iraq:
"Here's the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense outlining the strategy. We're going to take out seven countries in five years!' And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran. It was straight out of Paul Wolfowitz's 1991 play book, dressed up as the search for weapons of mass destruction and the global war on terror."
Partial transcript below the fold:
Asked about how he would choose to deal with Iran Wesley Clark had this to say:
CLARK: Well, there's a lot to talk about and I think he's certainly willing to talk. If he's not, other people are. Iran is in a deep hole economically. They don't have their oil industry in order. Their finances are being constrained. Their neighbors are opposed to them.
They're surrounded on four sides by either American troops, American forces or the potential of American military intervention. They have regional ambitions but they have a limited time.
BLITZER: So you're saying that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is only one voice there. There are other voices in Iran.
General Petraeus testified, Ambassador Crocker testified that Iranians were helping to kill American soldiers and Marines in Iraq. And others are now saying that Iranians are doing the same thing in Afghanistan, trying to send in their improvised explosive devices, et cetera. Does that affect your thinking about having a dialogue with Iraq?
CLARK: Absolutely. It makes it much more imperative that we talk because there's no question Iran is fighting back. From the time we went into Iraq, the Iranians' understanding was they were somewhere two or three or four down the hit list.
So as soon as we could digest the problem of Iraq, we would knock off Syria, take over Lebanon and come after Iran. That was the sort of loose talk around Washington and, of course, they understood that.
So their first line of defense has been to -- and it's not just military aid inside Iraq, by the way.
It's political engagement. It's economic support. It's medical support. It's education support. It's a continuous dialogue of people. This is their nearest neighbor, and they have a vital interest in Iraq. And so, yes, they're engaged. And we need to talk to them. That doesn't mean negotiating anything away. What it means is real, hard-headed dialogue about what their aims are, what our interest and aims are, and see if there's any common interest at all.
BLITZER: Here's a quote from the book, your new book, "A Time to Lead." And you write this: " 'Here's the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense outlining the strategy. We're going to take out seven countries in five years!' And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran. It was straight out of Paul Wolfowitz's 1991 play book, dressed up as the search for weapons of mass destruction and the global war on terror." Now, that jumped out at me. Explain to our viewers what you're referring to when you make a very serious charge like that, that this whole war in Iraq was basically built on a lie.
CLARK: Well, not exactly a lie. But a theory about how to deal with terrorism. It was the "drain the swamp" theory that emerged after 9/11 and people talked about it. But before that, in 1991, I remember being in Secretary Wolfowitz's office when he was the number three guy in the Pentagon.
And he said, yeah, the Gulf war, well, we didn't get rid of Saddam, but what we did learn is we can use military power to clean up these old client states. We've got maybe five or ten years to clean them up, Syria, Iran, the rest of them, before the next superpower comes along.
I said, five or ten years? You mean, China and -- the discussion sort of wandered off. But it was one of those nuggets you remember. And then I'm in the office with this senior general in the Pentagon, and he says, well, he says, sir, I just -- this is after I'm retired. Sir, I just got this memo down from the office upstairs. He's pointing upstairs. And they're on the second floor, and the civilians are on the third floor.
And he says, seven countries. I said, is that classified? And he read the countries. I said, is that classified? Stop. He was going to show it to me. I said, don't show that to me. I don't want to see that. And so it wasn't a plan. Maybe it was a think piece. Maybe it was a sort of notional concept, but what it was was the kind of indication of dialogue around this town in official circles, just like unofficial circles, that has poisoned the atmosphere and made it very difficult for this administration to achieve any success in the region.
Login or Register to post comments.
First?
Damn, how refreshing to hear voices of sanity and intelligence amidst the cacaphony of insane babble coming from this bat shit crazy administration.
This guy would have made an amazing president. Damn.
Strawberry @ 3:
You may just be looking at the next Vice President.
If nothing else... no matter who wins the Presidency... they need this guy back as Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State. (He might make a better Statesman).
Strawberry @ 3:
I think he would have made a better Secretary of Defense since that is where his expertise seems to be.
I doubt we would have seen him dancing around and chuckling with glee over the deaths of the "enemy" at a press briefing.
..There he is folks, Billary's VP candidate, and Carville's boy !
If Hillary wins, I bet she'll pick Wes as VP to combat the Repug talking point that she's soft on defense.
I wish Wolf would have pressed Clark on Clinton's support of the Iraq war. Somehow Clinton got branded the experienced candidate and that's apparently how Clark made his decision (thought we know why he really endorsed her). As John Stewart pointed out, she really only has a few more years in the senate than Obama. Are they counting her years as first Lady as experience?
xoites defends Constitution @ 6:
Yeah... we need someone who served more than 3 years in the military for that position (Rumsfeld spent 3 years and Gates 2), preferably an officer. The real fuck ups who are too eager to go to war with anyone tend to have little or no military experience, and hence wouldn't know warfare strategy if you smacked them across the head with a copy of Sun Tzu's and Machiavelli's Art of War.
andrew @ 7:
Bwawawawawawaw! For some reason, I get the feeling Wes has little or no patience with a guy like Carville. He's the Anti-Carville.
He has endorsed Hillary and if she picks him as her veep, she'll make me feel a whole lot better.
Wes Clark would not condone this. This is a National Outrage and emergency....watch it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ehuffi...
I like Wesley Clark. I think he would be a very good Secretary of Defense. If elected, Clinton might pick him for this job.
watch why i am happy kerry didnt become prez
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/tudent_Tasered_for_asking_Senator_Kerry_0...
Im curious as to why Crooks hasnt picked up on the "Attack Syria" propoganda going around.
Last week I found an article on Fox talking about a Nuke tie between Syria and N Korea. Totally unsubstantiated (Never stopped Faux, never will) but it was ONLY on Faux. Yeterday another.
Then today, its made my hometown paper, and the BBC.
Makes me wonder if Bush has decided Iran is too tough a nut to crack, and wants to attack Syria instead, for the "Quick win" that will "Define his legacy".
I think this is a great plan. The sooner the President plan a pointed strike at Iran. The sooner the world will engage in international coalition to combat the war on terror and Iran. It's time for another war already.
This country needs it, without another war this country will go into recession.
The evangelical pastors has already blessed this wars against Islam.
The public needs another brighter news besides the gloom of doom of today.
The army is seasoned, and ready and prep for it.
The media is already itching for a new shock-and-awe bomb scenes.
Starts the war already, President, and the public will follow you to the end. It always works.
pissed off patricia @ 12:
I do think this is a very likely scenario. And you better believe old Bill will be sent off to play diplomat in the Middle East - something he has a natural talent for. If anyone can begin to repair the damage done by the Bush adminstration, it's the big dog.
She may not be the best choice for prez but I think she would probably make good choices in appointing others. I KNOW what she is - a powerful, ambitious politician who doesn't seem terribly charming and is a little too chummy with big business. But the choice for president is going to be her or a Republican. We better just resign ourselves to that. Wishing otherwise don't make it so.
You guys are idiots. I can almost see the heartshaped eyes on your faces. He may have thought that the war was wrong but his friend Mrs. Hillary Clinton voted for it. I wonder if he picked up the phone and called her to tell her this. His vote is for Hillary Clinton because like the Bush's they're up to no good. And he can talk all he wants about how right she was to say that she should be cautious about talking to Syria and other countries in that part of the world. Baloney!! What about when Ronald Reagan was in talks with Gorbahev during the Cold War. Americans were not friends with Russians and fact there was an arms race. Please! This guy is your Patreaus to the Left wing.
Clinton-Clark '08.
Hmmmm. I just MIGHT be able to vote for that.
Conan @ 18:
Hillary was for the war, as was the public ... remember?
This is the next V.P. of the U.S.
Yes I do remember...but you know Mrs. Clinton could have done a little research herself, like Mr. Michael Moore, and others and she would of gotten some different information. But no, she opted to believe blindly, because she was scared. You answered your own question buddy, tell me how that makes her a good leader?
You guys are idiots. I can almost see the heartshaped eyes...blah...blah...
Yes! I think that all non-idiots should band together and support the least likely non-Republican candidates to get elected. That'll show the world that we mean bidness.
Since a Hillary/Wes ticket is anathama to all non-idiots and would be a strong ticket (if it should come about) to likely victory for a saner government I can only conclude that we should all get behind someone else. Booyaa!
Yours,
Not so sincerely,
So Hillary thinks talking to other leaders feeds the rethug propaganda machine and therefore will be controlled by smear and study groups?
Sorry, Wes and Hillary are out of phase. Rock solid logic meet paralysis by analysis. We don't need any lobby influenced govt vs. sure, I'll take their money. Yeah right.
Absent more conclusive evidence of Iranian involvement, I find the argument disingenuous. If having citizens involved in attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq were the threshold for invasion, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia long ago.
You know one man stood alone and tried to warn us that this war was wrong but we ignored him. Now you want us to ignore another Presidential candidate that makes more sense then Mrs. Hillary Clinton. Sorry Jimmi, like your dad would say (if he actually could get it right) Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Arroyo @ 20:
I expect a little more out of people who want to be our leaders than the general public. Actually, Obama has a brilliant foreign policy team, but just because CNN is selling Clinton/Clark, you guys will never bother to find out about it.
Gotta love Wesley Clark. Maybe someday.....a presidential run. Maybe Hil would give him an important Cabinet post, that would be good.
naschkatze @ 27:
Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth.
ThunderMonkey @ 5:
Exactly, then someday prez.
Carville's boy? Say it ain't so!
Whatever he says, as smart as he is, it is all bullshit because he is backing Clinton. The money party wins again. The military industrial warfare state wins again....and the American people lose....again!!
ty wes
"can i has my country backs...kthx"
lolkitty
it just happened...I'm sitting here thinking...holy shit Clinton/Clark just won the election.....the MsM has created it and now it will happen!!
baaaaaaah......that's what sheep say!
who the fuck is Bill W.???????
Questions Blog @ 32:
andrew @ 7:
Unfortuantely, you might be right.. Still, if Billary becomes the dem nominee, repigs will get the WH, again.. If sheeple prefer the ugly dry hay over fresh grass, so be it, deserved for idiocy.
The general does not bother to explain WHY Billary, over others ? Sloganeering ... Too bad.
I'm eager to check out Clark's new book
I'm NOT on Shillary's bandwagon and I'd have preferred Clark to endorse Edwards, but neither Edwards nor Obama have the experience of Shillary.
It's disappointing that Clark jumped on the right wing (including CNN) bandwagon attacking the MoveOn ad. I guess he felt obliged to defend one of his own. He should have "moved on" to the real issues sooner, rather than joining the right wing blah-blah. Aside from that, it was a good piece.
I don't think anybody 'voted for the war'. They voted to give the President the flexibility IF ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY and as a LAST RESORT. Bush couldn't even wait to get out of the toy store to start ripping the wrapping off that present. It's Bush's fault. End of story.
Enjoy.
naschkatze @ 27:
For the record, I am absolutely NOT interested in Hillary or Wesley Clark at all.
But ... why the f*** should Hillary apologize for her vote to go to war?
Better yet, the American Public should apologize for being douche bags and re-electing Bush in 2004.
What a load of crap. Americans are great at demanding insincere apologies - f*** that.
I don't like Hillary but if Clark becomes her running mate I'll campaign for him.
pissed off patricia @ 12:
Not me. If she picks him, it means they had a deal, which means that Clark cares more about his own political gain than he does about endorsing the *best* candidate. Did you hear what he said about her? That she has the "good judgement" and "experience" needed? What a load of B.S.
I've been a huge fan of Clark ever since I got to know more about him a little after the '04 Election. But if this is the kind of guy he is, he's lost a lot of my respect.
Ben @ 41:
If there is a deal it might be that he endorces her if she gets our troops out of Iraq.
Endorsing Clinton reaffirms what I already knew about Wes Clark--he's no friend of mine or any other progressive with more than half a brain.
Strangefate @ 43:
I seem to remember Mr. Moore calling him a friend.
Do any of you Shillary-bashers seriously think that someone who's NOT well-connected will EVER be elected POTUS?
Get real!
About the ONLY thing DK is right about is the war. Period. End of his story.
Was very, very disappointed that he also showed up on O'Reilly yesterday, something no one seems to be talking about. At least half of his message magically shifted to be more palatable to the FOX audience, cheerfully falling in with GOP talking points about the MoveOn ad, the terrible dangers of Iran, etc. At times I hard a hard time telling he was a Democrat.
ronrab @ 47:
Moveon does do some stupid things and Iran is a danger.
Too bad Clark fell into the frame trap set by Blitzer (who himself had fallen into the Republican frame trap), that the bad deed of the week goes to MoveOn.org for attacking Petraeus. Clark should have said that the bad deed of the week was Bush's shameful decision to hide behind Petraeus to defend his failed strategy in Iraq. Petraeus is employed by Bush. Furthermore, Petraeus is in charge of the very military tactical moves that he was defending on Capital Hill. It's the fox testifying as to his guarding of the henhouse, and is an inherent conflict of interest.
Media Concepts @ 49:
Clark knows Petraeus personally attacking him would be very hard on Clark.
Apparently some of you didn't hear Clark say--loud and clear--"Stop Hiding Behind Petraeus":
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002259.php
Clark is running point to keep us from bombing the hell out of Iran and starting the slide into hell. He puts duty, honor, and country above personal gain. Always has. Always will.
Wes did not endorse Hillary with any intention except doing what he thinks is best for the country. I disagree with that, but I have no doubt that is his firm belief. He blogged with us at his blog the other day and it is more than clear he didn't do this for himself.
For an example of why so many of us honor and respect Wes, I want to share one of his answers to a blogger who expressed his dismay that not only was Wes not running, but was endorsing Hillary. He (the blogger) said it was the end of a dream. This was Wes' reply:
Dr. Acula @ 47:
Yeah, the war, it is such a minor issue. I mean really, who cares ? Dr.Acula, DK is much more than that. Perhaps you could learn more about him, then, you might have a clue.
Anyone else notice when wolf asked the question about Obama, it was totally ignored ?
BLITZER: "...that MoveOn.org ad that ... questioned your [Petraeus] patriotism or what your motives were..."
I find it extremely frustrating that Blitzer and all the hysterical douche bags on the right bark at us for "questioning Patraeus' patriotism" while they have been essentially calling us traitors the last four years for giving a shit about our country.
Welcome to your new Vice President. Can't wait until 2008. It is going to be a sea change in this country like we haven't seen in a long time.
Clinton/Clark 08!
crazy train @ 55:
As it should have been. It was a stupid question. Because he believes Hillary has character does not mean Obama does not.
This is the typical up/down, yes/no, good/bad infantile mentality we have been engaged in for too long.
Good for Clark to not give it any response.
Conan @ 19:
If you believe this you are hopelessly limited in your judgement of character. Luckily, I doubt others will have this opinion of General Clark. He is intelligent, empathic, and incredibly gifted.
We have an embarassment of riches in my opinion with our candidates and should not spend our time sniping at each other.
At the end of the day, we are electing politicians and representatives, not saviors. In that regard, we have some talented, intelligent politicians running and the repugs got bupkis.
This petulant loser "I'm staying home if Clinton runs" attitude is the only thing that can fuck up 2008 for us.
Don't blow it ... again.
From Jim Koagland's column:
The thrust and parry of spin and counter-spin resembled the stuff of ephemera rather than the stuff of history. Cool, competent performances by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Capitol Hill aimed at buying six to nine more months for something to turn up, as the two men honestly if indirectly acknowledged.
Now, is that a straightforward report on the "progress", or more stalling for Bush? Clearly a betrayal. How would you feel if someone from your family were over there? Half-truths to buy six or nine months more. What about the benchmarks?
*Hoagland
[...] Be ye ready to surrender?: Gen. Wesley Clark told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer about the neocon “drain the swamp” plan, which means the U.S. still has about four or five more Middle Eastern nations to invade and occupy. [...]
Login or Register to post comments.