Wes Clark plays the chickenhawk card on Lieberman over Iran

posted at 6:36 pm on June 12, 2007 by Allahpundit

That’s the bad news. The good news? He resisted the urge to call him a “Connecticut money person.”

Senator Lieberman’s saber rattling does nothing to help dissuade Iran from aiding Shia militias in Iraq, or trying to obtain nuclear capabilities. In fact, it’s highly irresponsible and counter-productive, and I urge him to stop.

This kind of rhetoric is irresponsible and only plays into the hands of President Ahmadinejad, and those who seek an excuse for military action. What we need now is full-fledged engagement with Iran. We should be striving to bridge the gulf of almost 30 years of hostility and only when all else fails should there be any consideration of other options. The Iranians are very much aware of US military capabilities. They don’t need Joe Lieberman to remind them that we are the militarily dominant power in the world today.

Only someone who never wore the uniform or thought seriously about national security would make threats at this point. What our soldiers need is responsible strategy, not a further escalation of tensions in the region. Senator Lieberman must act more responsibly and tone down his threat machine.

None of the Democratic frontrunners has served, yet all three — Silky Pony most noisily among them — have insisted on keeping an attack on Iran’s reactors as an option. As time wears on and our hope-inspiring dialogue with the regime inevitably proves fruitless, all three will have no choice but to escalate their own rhetoric accordingly to keep pace with the GOP during election season. Where will that leave Clark? Count this as exhibit B, then, in the case of the left’s love affair with the chickenhawk meme boomeranging on them. It’s almost worth rooting for McCain to get the nomination just to see it come full circle by next November.

Speaking of escalation, a diplomat who’s been talking to ElBaradei told AFP today that if Iran continues at this pace, they’ll have 8,000 centrifuges installed by December. That’s a big “if,” of course, with plenty of logistical hurdles to clear in order to obtain and operate the necessary equipment at a level needed to enrich uranium. But bear in mind that the threshold number needed to produce enough HEU for a bomb in one year is only 3,000. If ElBaradei comes back this fall or winter with a report that they’ve passed that number and things are working properly, things are going to get very tense. And, less importantly, the campaign’s going to get very interesting.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

If he means people in uniform like Wes Clark should make decisions regarding our military, I’ll take a chickenhawk like Lieberman anyday

Defector01 on June 12, 2007 at 6:39 PM

Please. Maybe this loon could review the Constitution while he waits for his Meds.

pat on June 12, 2007 at 6:41 PM

Senator speculating about a military attack in the future: unacceptable

Senator speculating we have lost a war that isn’t yet over: acceptable

moonbat logic?

Resolute on June 12, 2007 at 6:41 PM

Wasn’t this guy somebody once?

Nah, I didn’t think so either.

thirteen28 on June 12, 2007 at 6:44 PM

All I hear anymore when these idiots use that tired argument is:

blah blah blah chicken blah blah

If I liked chicken, it’d make me hungry. But I don’t, so it just bores me instead.

These guys all need a US Government lesson. There is a specific reason that the founding fathers wanted the government to be led by a civilian. This certainly doesn’t exclude people that have served their country in uniform, but it definitely doesn’t exclude people that have never worn the uniform.

JadeNYU on June 12, 2007 at 6:45 PM

Clark is a total moonbat. It’s amazing someone could spend all that time in the military, and still be so loony. Now he’s playing the “I served” card, to legitimise his appeasement strategy, ala Kerry.

bmac on June 12, 2007 at 6:49 PM

The Iranians are very much aware of US military capabilities

But because of appeasement democrats like Clark, they don’t think we’ll use them. Which is why we need people like Lieberman to make it clear that we will.

We should be striving to bridge the gulf of almost 30 years of hostility and only when all else fails should there be any consideration of other options

But dems like clark will never say their appeasement has failed, so we end up with endless capitulation that puts us in ever increasing danger.

forged rite on June 12, 2007 at 6:57 PM

This kind of rhetoric is irresponsible and only plays into the hands of President Ahmadinejad, and those who seek an excuse for military action.

So is he admitting that the Iranians want to attack us or our allies, they just need an “excuse”? And the best way to prevent this is to “fully engage” them?

WTF?

What does that even mean?

Fatal on June 12, 2007 at 6:57 PM

Where will that leave Clark?

Making pancakes in New Hampshire?

grahsco on June 12, 2007 at 6:58 PM

No wonder Lou Dobbs banned him from his show. He’s all politics and no real strategy.

V15J on June 12, 2007 at 7:01 PM

V15J on June 12, 2007 at 7:01 PM

And why Clinton fired him during Kosovo.

TheBigOldDog on June 12, 2007 at 7:10 PM

How about some comics ALLAH?!?!?!?! Clark would make a good subject again!!!!

Andy in Agoura Hills on June 12, 2007 at 7:11 PM

YEah, I’d love to see this photoshopped by the once great Allah. Come on! Your old stuff was hilarious!!!! We need new stuff. Who in the audience wants Allah to return to his old Photoshop ways?????

Andy in Agoura Hills on June 12, 2007 at 7:18 PM

As if we needed more reminders of why Gen. Shelton fired this turd.

Kid from Brooklyn on June 12, 2007 at 7:20 PM

actually it wasnt clinton who fired him, it was the CJCS, who to this day will not say why, only that it was for a “breach of moral and ethical conduct so distasteful as to make clarks continued service in uniform impossible to consider”. how I wish he would tell the whole story on clark!

colorfulbeachpersona on June 12, 2007 at 7:20 PM

oh and since slick willy didn’t re-instate him immediately, I feel safe in assuming it wasn’t for “under the desk service” by some new recruit or other sexual behavior

colorfulbeachpersona on June 12, 2007 at 7:22 PM

General George B. McClellan lives!

Limerick on June 12, 2007 at 7:29 PM

Wesley who?

profitsbeard on June 12, 2007 at 7:37 PM

He’s the George Michael of politics.

Max Power on June 12, 2007 at 7:39 PM

This little douchebag has made a career out of “wearing the uniform”, but seems to engender little respect from his subordinates.

Someone once named him “the single U.S. general most likely to be shot by his own troops” and implied that Clinton removed him from leadership for Clark’s own protection. Heh.

Still, he was top in his class at West Point, and was three times wounded in Vietnam.

All in all, I’d sooner follow Lieberman into battle than Clark.

Jaibones on June 12, 2007 at 7:39 PM

Only someone that believes an argyle sweater is the key to winning the Presidency would need to play the chickenhawk card.

rw on June 12, 2007 at 7:53 PM

“breach of moral and ethical conduct so distasteful as to make clarks continued service in uniform impossible to consider”
colorfulbeachpersona on June 12, 2007 at 7:20 PM

Perhaps some blessings from the prophet?

csdeven on June 12, 2007 at 7:54 PM

Only someone who never wore the uniform or thought seriously about national security would make threats at this point.

Only someone who was a shark-eyed sociopath would suggest the ability of American taxpayers, and their duly elected representatives, to think seriously about national security would be conditional on their having experienced boot camp.

Blacklake on June 12, 2007 at 8:47 PM

CJCS

Help me, is that the Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

And I suppose there is some sort of “death by self-inflicted gunshot” penalty if the real story gets out? That sucks; I’d love to hear it. He probably was schtupping the cabin boy, Pablo.

Jaibones on June 12, 2007 at 8:58 PM

Clark is a pathetic chump that got his promotion by beating Monica to Bill.

JayHaw Phrenzie on June 12, 2007 at 9:44 PM

The man is a fraud, plain and simple!

NEMETI IN SYRACUSE on June 12, 2007 at 10:53 PM

Primadonas were seen smirking in indignation again…Imagine being married to this guy and having to listen to talk love of himself all day. No wonder he’s a ‘contributor’ all over.

Iran has been supplying the Taliban with weapons, a high official in the admin. said today.

With all the libs who’re running for ’08 having served, not, it’s going to be interesting next year. Not much serving, except for McCain, on the right either. However, this BS can’t be applied, if they can’t argue from example.

Entelechy on June 12, 2007 at 11:38 PM

Wasn’t this guy somebody once?

Yes, he was universally despised by his subordinates and an extreme annoyance to most of his superiors.

Help me, is that the Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Chairman.

James on June 13, 2007 at 7:39 AM

Gracias.

Jaibones on June 13, 2007 at 9:19 AM

colorfulbeachpersona on June 12, 2007 at 7:20 PM

Gen. Clark released/leaked classified information during the Kosovo conflict. Information that he was not authorized to release/leak. Since this action could have been considered treason the CJCS, designated it as a “breach of moral and ethical conduct so distasteful as to make clarks continued service in uniform impossible to consider”. He was however supreme commander of allied forces at the time so charging him with treason was pretty much out of the question.

doriangrey on June 13, 2007 at 11:58 AM