| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Clarke opposes Iran invasion |
| 2006-04-16 |
| A U.S. conflict with Iran could be even more damaging to America's interests than the war with Iraq, former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke wrote in Sunday's New York Times. In an op-ed article co-authored with Steven Simon, a former State Department official who also worked for the National Security Council, Clarke wrote reports that the Bush administration is contemplating bombing nuclear sites in Iran raised concerns that "would simply begin a multi-move, escalatory process." Iran's likely response would be to "use its terrorist network to strike American targets around the world, including inside the United States," Clarke and Simon warned. "Iran has forces as its command far superior to anything Al Qaeda was ever able to field," they said, citing Iran's links with the militant group Hezbollah. Iran could also make things much worse in Iraq, they wrote, adding "there is every reason to believe that Iran has such a retaliatory shock wave planned and ready." President George W. Bush might then sanction more bombing, Clarke and Simon said, hoping Iranians would overthrow the Tehran government. But "more likely, the American war against Iran would guarantee the regime decades more of control." The authors concluded by warning that "the parallels to the run-up to the war with Iraq are all too striking: remember that in May 2002 President Bush declared that there was 'No war plan on my desk' despite having actually spent months working on detailed plans for the Iraq invasion." Congress "must not permit the administration to launch another war whose outcome cannot be known, or worse, known all too well," they said. |
| Posted by:Flelet Spavinter3070 |
| #10 I oppose Clarke's continued breathing my oxygen. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-04-16 21:27 |
| #9 Clarke opposed my potato salad, but it was irrelevant to my guests. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-04-16 19:41 |
| #8 We'll subdue the mullahs with computer virii. |
| Posted by: R. Clarke, Terrorism and Computer Crime Expert 2006-04-16 13:33 |
| #7 This idiot would have advised Roosevelt to stay out of World War II. We'd all be either Nazis or dead. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-04-16 12:50 |
| #6 Here's a brief symposis: Clinton (including Clarke) chickened out in late-1990s, so it is a bad idea now. Meantime, in the subsequent years, we have reaped the difficulties of a lame Clinton administration. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-04-16 12:12 |
| #5 "Iran has forces as its command far superior to anything Al Qaeda was ever able to field," they said, citing Iran's links with the militant group Hezbollah. And that's supposed to be an argument for NOT crushing the Mad Mullahs???? Fucking idiots... |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-04-16 09:34 |
| #4 You beat me to it, #3. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-04-16 09:05 |
| #3 You know it is a good idea when Clarke sez not to. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-04-16 09:00 |
| #2 Who? Iran's likely response, assuming it's done correctly, thoroughly, and mercilessly, will be to roll over into the Who do these "experts" and "geniuses" think will be around to keep up the payments on the terror networks? Aren't they smart enough to realize that once the regime goes down, so do the networks they supported? No, I guess not. More of the anti-weathervane at work here. Whatever these clowns are against doing, we should do forthwith. |
| Posted by: Elmens Cheretle8179 2006-04-16 04:37 |
| #1 Who in the f&ck has been advocating an invasion? Headlines should read "Clarke and rest of world (including W and Rumsfeld) opposes Iran Invasion" what a weak-ass piece of |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-04-16 01:32 |