I'm not sure Wesley Clark's defense of Hillary Clinton's support of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was convincing, but it was the sort of thing that might convince. Clark is, after all, a great proxy to have doing outreach to more dovish voters for you — an Iraq War opponent, a committed multilateralist, and someone with deep ties to the blogosphere. Madeleine Albright not so much. When people worry that an HRC administration might be too hawkish, Albright is part of what we're worrying about, she a member of the hawkish "strategic class" circle that Clinton was aligning herself with when she voted to authorize war with Iraq.
« Where to Find Qualified Women | Main | Malawi vs. the Stone Age »
Iran Proxies
28 Oct 2007 01:54 pm
Comments (19)
Madeline Albright never gets any respect, but in fact she was much more critical of the proposed war in Iraq back in the day than any other high-ranking Clintonista, except Gore. Certainly she was more outspoken than Wes Clark, who got in trouble for saying he would have voted for the Iraq Resolution (which, like Hillary, he might spin as not a vote "for war" etc.) and who had not been at all prominent as a dove before he got in the ring. And of course Clark's fame is based largely on being the commander in the "liberal war" that Albright pushed for in Kosovo. So if she is less reassuring to doves than Clark it's because Matt is ignoring aspects of both of their records.
Interesting you think his forte is in outreach to more dovish voters. I always thought he was fantastic on Fixed News reaching out to independents and swings with his ability to convey strength and overturn the reputation for Democrats to be wimps.
(His only problem being that in reality, our current Democratic Leaders ARE wimps, Nancy, Harry, ....)
I think the guy is brilliant and kudos to Hillary for picking him up.
Prior to the Iraq War, Madeleine Albright, opposing it, debated it with Henry Kissinger, who favored it, on Charlie Rose.
As I recall, she then elsewhere - perhaps of the News Hour? - opposed the Iraq War.
So I question whether she is as hawkish as Matthew now says she is.
I like the General, but he was pretty mediocre on Bill Maher the other night. Kind of schmuckish.
It also seems to me that many out there (including the General) fail to publicly recognize the obvious: we have very little intel on where to bomb the Iranians. Even allowing for some underground development locations, it's not as though we can even take those out.
I wouldn't put it past the Bush administration to ignore that and just bomb away, but it seems to me like it's a point worth making, over and over again.
The threat's not credible, for a number of reasons. So it's a bit of a song and dance for the candidates, in my opinion.
Madeleine Albright seems just like a Zionist to me. She said that even if 500,000 children had died of the sanctions of Iraq that it was "worth it". She declared that America was an "indispensible nation" (a statement of hubris). And of course she approved of Lieberman-Kyl.
I think both Clark and Albright have roughly the same view of military power. Both can be considered "Owls", neither hawks nor doves, but ones who believes a strong military posture is important to back up diplomacy.
For those who aren't sure where Clark is on Iran, check out his web site http://stopiranwar.com/
The debates about the Iraq War and war with Iran are not solely between hawks and doves. I would categorize it as mainly between realists and neo-Jacobins. Many of those opposed to the Iraq war and war with Iran are not traditional doves. They would support the use of military force if they believed it would actually lead to beneficial outcomes for the US. I don't think hawk is the right word to describe those who continue to support foreign policies detrimental to the US either. Vulture or dodo would be more appropriate.
Does anyone really know what President HRC would do in Iraq, against Iran, fighting terrorism? My guess would be: keep troops in Iraq for 8 years, bomb in October 2012, and pump more money into Afghanistan.
Madeleine Albright seems just like a Zionist to me. Bengt Larsson seems just like a jerkoff do nothing racist to me.
Andrew Sullivan handed Gen. Clark his head in their exchange on Bill Maher's show. Granted, Clark was hobbled by his role as a hired gun for Hillary.
It's also hard to reconcile Clark's Bush-bashing with his famous pro-Bush speech at that Lincoln Day dinner. Did he believe what he said about Bush then? Does he believe what he is saying about Hillary now? Or is it all Clintonian calculation? Maybe it's an Arkansas thing.
Clark sold out.
He's a two-bit sell-out
Re Bengt Larsson's comment "She [Madeleine Albright] said that even if 500,000 children had died of the sanctions of Iraq that it was "worth it"."
I think Mr Larsson is correct. As I recall, the question came up on Sixty Minutes around 1996:
---------
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."
Ref: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084
---------
In 1997-1998 interviews with US TV Networks, Bin Laden cited the deaths of those children as one of the three justifications for Al Qaeda's war on the US. (A fact carefully ignored by the 911 Commission )
What does that have to do with his bullshit remarks linking that to Zionism? Larsson is a pig.
I remember "Lord Wesley" when he was the commander of 1st CAV at FT Hood. He was a pretty boy who drove around in a Miata or some sort of convertible. He pulled up at the gas pump opposite me and the first thing he did was comb his hair when he got out of his car. My friend told me that when he came out to their TOC (Tactical Operations Center) in the field the first thing he did was comb his hair after he handed his helmet to his aide. He threw a hissy fit when he realized that specks of dried paint came off on his hand when he was speaking on the various color coded hand mikes. A real "purple prince".
Re anon's comment "What does that [Madeleine Albright's dismissal of 500,000 Iraqi children deaths due to Clinton sanctions ] have to do with his bullshit remarks linking that to Zionism? Larsson is a pig."
---------
1) Larsson may have assumed that Madeleine Albright --aka Marie Jana Korbelová -- advocated murderous policies against Iraqi civilians because (a) Madeleine Albright has Jewish ancestry -- and lost many relatives in the Holocaust, including 3 grandparents. and (b) Saddam Hussein was a threat to Israel -- going so far as to give families of Palestinian suicide bombers cash subsidies of around $25,000. (Note that Hussein was angry over Israel's diversion of water from the Euphrates via deals with Turkey to build dams in the Euphrates headwaters. )
2) However, my understanding is that Albright was raised Roman Catholic -- and did not learn of her Jewish ancestry until Nov 1996. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright
3) That, at least , is Albright's story. I find it hard to understand that her parents would actually hide such information from her -- even after she became an adult. But then her parents' conversion to Catholicism --and dropping of their Jewish faith -- was supposedly driven by a need to escape prosecution. Some people live lives that the rest of us can never really comprehend.
See http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/antisemitism/voices/transcript/index.php?content=20070412
4) I wonder if Albright regretted her 60 Minutes comments after discovering how the Holocaust had almost destroyed her entire family. If discovering the tragedy that struck her own relatives might have awakened some empathy within her heart for those hundreds of thousands of grieving Iraqi parents.
God seems to teach us lessons at times.
Clark claims to want to not have a war with Iran, but he STILL thinks Iran is a threat.
That makes him a hawk and his Web site a sham.
The bottom line for all the "Iran is a threat" types is:
1) Iran is not a threat.
2) Once you claim Iran is a threat, you make it a threat.
3) Once you make it a threat, what do you do? Not make it a threat any more? No - you bomb.
So these people are just hypocrites who want to start the war later than sooner and have the right alibis when it all goes bad later like Iraq.
Iran is not a threat to anybody at this point unless they are attacked. Not even their Quds Force operations are a threat to the US - Israel maybe, but not the US as long as the US stays out of their way.
Clark claims to want to not have a war with Iran, but he STILL thinks Iran is a threat.
Interesting. Apparently you agree with Republicans that each and every threat is worth a war. There is no gray. It is not possible for something to be both a threat and not worth a war. You are with us or you are against us.
Keep that head in a hole, it makes the world much easier to understand.
Mark, establish where Iran is a threat to the US - in any real, concrete terms.
You can't do it.
The only time anybody connected with Iran took action against the US was when the US was taking action against Iran or was somewhere the US didn't need to be.
Just because Iran has a leadership of a different religion or even hostile attitudes towards the US because of past US actions or even basic disagreements on how countries should be run does not make them a "threat".
Keep that head in a hole, it makes the world much easier to understand.
Comments closed November 11, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I don't think that the people will vote for GWB in a pantsuit and standard post-menopausal issue pearls even she has a D after her name.
Posted by gregor | October 28, 2007 2:02 PM