ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Gen. Wesley Clark: Escalation Will Empower Iran

In his Jan. 10 address to the nation, Bush cited Iran’s growing influence in Iraq as a key argument for escalating U.S. troop presence. “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria,” Bush said.

Last night on Fox News’s O’Reilly Factor, Gen. Wesley Clark said that using escalation to counter Iran is a “fundamentally flawed” strategy. “What is actually happening with the surge strategy is the Shiite militia have gone underground and the U.S. troops are going to concentrate against the Sunnis. The actual impact of the surge strategy is likely to be that we deliver total control of Baghdad to the Shiites sooner rather than later.” In other words, if anything, the escalation will end up empowering Iran. Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/02/clarkiran.320.240.flv]

Digg It!

Transcript: Read more

Bush Meets With Anti-Semite Who Celebrated The Killing Of American Soldiers

jumblatt.JPGPresident Bush reportedly met yesterday with Walid Jumblatt, a member of the Lebanese Parliament who has repeatedly called for U.S.-backed regime change in Syria.

After visiting the White House, Jumblatt addressed the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, which wields significant influence within the administration. “Many people say there won’t be a stable Lebanon without regime change in Syria,” Jumblatt said, adding that he “urged the Bush administration to aid opposition groups fighting the rule” of Syrian President Assad.

Jumblatt’s meeting with the White House is notable not just because of his radical foreign policy views. In the past, Jumblatt has cheered the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq, referred to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as “oil-colored,” and claimed the real axis of evil is one of “oil and Jews.”

– “We are all happy when U.S. soldiers are killed [in Iraq] week in and week out. The killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq is legitimate and obligatory.” [Link]

– “The oil axis is present in most of the U.S. administration, beginning with its president, vice-president and top advisers, including (Condoleezza) Rice, who is oil-colored, while the axis of Jews is present with Paul Wolfowitz, the leading hawk who is inciting (America) to occupy and destroy Iraq.” [Link]

– “In November 2003, the United States revoked Jumblatt’s diplomatic visa for wishing out loud that Wolfowitz had been killed in a Baghdad rocket attack.” [Link]

While the White House has yet to comment on Jumblatt’s visit, his regime change talk yesterday “drew a round of applause from the AEI audience.”

Digg It!

Yglesias

Vigorous!

Alvin H. Rosenfeld of “Progressive’ Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism” fame takes to the virtual pages of The New Republic to write some more about this. Unintentional comedy prize goes to this:

Vigorous discussion of Israeli policies and actions is not in question here. Such discussion proceeds across all of the media in this country and within Israel itself. It’s disingenuous, therefore, to say that “you can’t raise questions about Israel.” Such questions are raised continually by a broad range of commentators. Read Yossi Klein Halevi, Michael B. Oren, Dennis Ross, Hillel Halkin, and Michael Walzer, to name only a few of the best informed commentators, and you will find such discussion taking place in thoughtful and clarifying ways.

But, look, this is the point: discussion of Israel is ubiquitous in the American media but it proceeds across an extraordinarily narrow range well-captured by Rosenfeld’s list here. For a long time, America’s Israel policy was rather peripheral to the broad range of things one might want to discuss, and so this situation, if not ideal, was also fine. Since 9/11, however, the question of American policy toward the broad Middle East — including, obviously, Israel — has moved much closer to the center of national attention. Naturally enough, that’s led to demands to open up the debate to a wider range of voices. That, in turn, has led to this campaign — conducted on the rubric of “the new anti-semitism” — to essentially stuff everything back in the box and define in advance what the acceptable conclusions, modes of rhetoric, etc., are.

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up