Have the emotions settled down a bit?
1.) Three times in the OP and headline Clawson is described as a lobbyist for AIPAC. Then the OP states
He doesn't work for AIPAC exactly, but
close enough I guess:
Not only has no evidence been presented that he works for AIPAC, there hasn't been shown any evidence that indicates
he's a lobbyist for anybody.
2.) Each video linked (including the one described as a poster as "unedited,") is a composite of two different answers he gave at the end of the
question and answer session, and was not part of his main presentation.
A few posters have noticed and mentioned these things, and I salute them for their reasonableness and thoughtfulness.
Clawson is a researcher and analyst. He works for a think tank designed to throw ideas around. His presentation was focused on diplomatic means to
get the Iranians to agree to limit their nuclear activities in a deal that both sides could agree to. There have been problems with diplomacy on this
subject in the past, and he quoted Obama and Clinton's statements to show they believed that time was running out if we wanted to reach Obama's goal
of prevention. Several proposals were discussed.
They then moved on to the possibility that sanctions might not work if the Supreme Leader was taking North Korea as a model instead of China. It was
thought possible that the Supreme Leader admired the "revolutionary fervor" of North Korea and might follow their example.
Eventually, they came to the question of what could be done if diplomacy completely and finally failed. He emphasised that it was important that if
America was going to war, we would have to show the world that we had made a reasonable offer and that Iran had refused it completely, knowing what
the consequences would be.
After all that was discussed, it was mentioned that it is better, if war was inevitable, that the US be seen as responding to a significant event,
like the ones he mentioned. As has been pointed out, he wasn't suggesting or condoning the idea that the US should engage in a false flag
As far as the submarine not coming up, that was in answer to a different comment someone had made and was edited on to the end of his first answer.
There he admitted what we all know, that everybody in the area is conducting covert activities, definitely not false flags, and so are we. These
activities are designed to put pressure on governments, not start wars. Did Stuxnet start a war? No, it was designed to weaken Iran's nuclear
I really understand the reason for the hatred, sometimes rabid, on this thread. I haven't come anywhere near believing that his two edited answers
are a reasonable basis for such hatred.