"Wes Clark: Leading on Iran"

Matt Stoller:

I spent about 45 minutes yesterday chatting with Wes Clark at the DNC Convention, and I was reminded what a real leader looks and sounds like. Long before it was popular to be against the war in Iraq, Wes Clark was arguing that the war was a mistake. Similarly, Clark was the first major candidate to argue that talks with Iran were the right approach, in 2005, and again at the 'Real State of the Union' speech in 2006. Though all candidates are now discussing talks with Iran and Syria as a useful strategy, Clark was first, and he pushed the debate to that place. Even so, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are still using belligerent AIPAC-authored rhetoric that will in retrospect look like a justification for an attack. As Digby points out, painting Iran as the most serious threat to the United States out there, makes it easier to Bush to do what he wants to do, which is widen the conflict to Iran. It's political malpractice and sheer lunacy.

Edwards has walked back his rhetoric, but it worries me deeply that he doesn't get the politics at play. Hillary Clinton is even worse, as she won't even acknowledge her own errors in the Iraq fiasco and is replaying the same movie with regards to Iran. The Democrats who cheered her at the convention here, and who believe her Lieberman-esque 'As President I will end the war' line ought to recognize her pandering to the extremists at AIPAC. She has been pro-war, she is currently failing to do anything to stop the war, and she's providing rhetorical cover for Bush to start a new war. That's very very bad. What we need is someone to come out and argue strongly that Bush's baiting of Iranian forces is THE problem, to prevent a Gulf of Tonkin-like situation.

The only people in the field that I've heard make this argument are Bill Richardson and Wes Clark, who are incidentally the most experienced and effective diplomats we have. Wes Clark ran a bad campaign in 2004, but what's clear is that he is one of the only real leaders we have on the Democratic side of the aisle. He spoke out, albeit clumsily, against the AIPAC lobby, and he gets the stakes in the fight over Iran.

A lot of people think that Clark and Richardson are second or third-tier, and can't possibly win. That might be true. But if Bush ratchets up and attacks Iran, something that we all know is likely, all of a sudden room opens up for a genuine antiwar candidate. I hope it never gets to that. I would hope that Obama steps up soon and argues aggressively against belligerent rhetoric against Iran, or that Clark finds his voice and criticizes Edwards and Clinton for covering for a war with Iran. That way, perhaps there's the possibility of putting pressure on Bush to not go to war with Iran, and forcing a rewrite of the AUMF through Congress.

But we need to realize, that in Connecticut only John Kerry and Wes Clark stepped up against Joe Lieberman and his crazy neo-conservative ideology in dramatic public fashion. That pattern, of Clark leading when a position isn't popular, continues today.