Wesley Clark: Discharge Immediately
February 7, 2004
Don’t worry, I’m not preparing to mount a Walking Horse and go striding from Bristol to Memphis, shouting, “The Leftists are coming! The Leftists are coming!” (It is quite tempting; but, any excuse to ride a horse is a good one.)
Nope — the invasion to which I refer will come in the form of Democratic presidential candidates. They will come in flanked by assistants of various types. They will come in talking about values. (But, whose values?) They will come in talking about tradition. (Waving a flag?) They will come in talking about jobs. (Only union jobs, of course.) They will come in kissing children (if they live). They will come in trying to win votes from veterans. (Inspect closely.) One candidate, however, will be absent from the pack. Apparently, Howard Dean believes that Wisconsin is more important than Tennessee. (And, how many US Presidents have come from Wisconsin?)
As a side note, my guess is that Howard Dean is relying upon the endorsement of Al Gore to win him votes in Tennessee. But, if Al Gore’s endorsement of Al Gore didn’t work in 2000, why would it work for Howard Dean in 2004? Oh, but I forgot, I’m not an “enlightened” member of the “in-crowd”. If I was, then I would know that campaign dollars and “who you know” are more important than beliefs, integrity, and experience. And, there is a well-funded new voice for members of the in-crowd: the Music Row Democrats. Their stated goal is to “dispel the notion that all country music people are Republican”. (But, by their very existence, they prove that at least one section of the entertainment world is not in the grip of the Left.) Those who earn huge salaries off the work of conservative-minded musicians, and then spend big money on Leftist causes, are the people I was talking about when I referred to “suits” in my recent article about the desecration of the American flag at the Super Bowl. (Of course, this paragraph could be the wooden stake through the heart of my hopes of making money as a lyricist.) Back to the point of this side note, Dean can only snub Tennessee at his political peril. To his credit, General Clark understands that strategic fact.
My primary concern in this article is with the candidacy of Wesley Clark, because he projects the type of image that many Southern Democrats might buy. Tall, handsome, well-spoken, and with a high-ranking retirement — these are qualities that voters looking on the surface might wrongly equate with another former general: President Andrew Jackson of Tennessee. One of the problems with the current state of politics in America is that most voters only scan the surface. And, on the surface, Wesley Clark looks very good. (But, on the surface, nobody could find Saddam Hussein living in a septic tank.)
Here’s what one finds beneath the surface regarding Wesley Clark.
Myth #1: “He is qualified to be president, because he is a Rhodes scholar.” This statement is an oxymoron, because anyone that graduates the Oxford program named after Cecil Rhodes should be automatically disqualified from any leadership position of any kind within the United States of America. The essential mission of the Rhodes scholarship program is to plant the seeds of Socialism into otherwise bright young minds. And, never was the planting of those seeds so successful as when Bill Clinton (another Rhodes scholar) implemented one Communist policy after another during his presidency. Clinton surrounded himself with people from Little Rock, and Wesley Clark was part of that inner circle. To think that Wesley Clark will not have at least one Clinton (most likely two) on his Cabinet would be foolish. It would be as foolish as a conclusion that another member of the Little Rock circle, Vince Foster, committed suicide. Now, given that Bill Clinton shredded much of the American military, what do you think would happen to the military with a Clinton understudy as president? And, what position do you think that the “honorable” former President Bill “loathing the military” Clinton would occupy in the Cabinet? (Secretary of Defense?! Attorney General??)
Myth #2: “He is qualified to be president, because he is a retired general.” This is a trickier myth to unravel, because I do believe that military leadership experience is usually a qualifier for political leadership. But, there are definitely exceptions. It seems that, when looking into the background of General Clark, there are two types of quotes available. One type is a quote from people that adore him; the other is a quote from people that despise him. I haven’t seen many quotes in between. Clark is portraying himself as a “centrist” (just as Bill Clinton did). But, his persona is apparently quite polarizing. This is a contradiction, as are many of the things I’ve seen about Clark’s background. (Admittedly, some people might say some of these same things about me. But, I’m not running for president, and I’m not one to dodge issues — even unpleasant ones.) Something else to consider is the source of the comments. Positive comments are often made by people that have never been in the military, and who key in on the “snapshot” quotes (from his military record) put out by the Clark campaign. (Of course, one of the most glowing quotes came from Alexander “I’m in charge” Haig. So, it is a bit suspect in my mind.) Negative comments are often made by people that were also career military; and, in some cases, have had to live with the effects of some of Clark's orders. (And, the Secretary of Defense that fired Clark said, “…the ax, as such, when it fell spoke for itself.”) So, in my view, the negative comments that I’ve seen carry a lot more weight. (Note: to be balanced, it should be noted that Col. Hackworth later praised Clark, after he became a candidate. But, the archives of Hackworth’s columns indicate that he had written more than one rather negative article about Clark. It will be hard to recover from a man of Col. Hackworth’s caliber calling Clark “The Ultimate Perfumed Prince”. And, the tone of “Reporting for duty: Wesley Clark” seems to be as much anti-“Dubya” as it is pro-Clark. But, should we replace a winning wartime president with someone like Clark? Not in my opinion.)
As my regular readers know, I want my opinions to be as fully-informed as possible. Although I look at things from the political Right, that does not mean that I don’t pay attention to the political Left. (The reason my opinions are on the Right is because I’ve read plenty of material from the Left.) Oddly, there are many Left-wing Democrats that are referring to Clark as a war criminal. (Many of the sources for those accusations come from openly Socialist sources, which one would expect to support another Rhodes scholar for president.) Serious accusations that Clark may have approved the specific bombing of civilian targets seem to overlooked by the same liberal media that has given Clark so much exposure. I know that exposure on network TV can make even a bad officer look good. (During the TV coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I sent an e-mail to another network about a credibility problem with their employment of a certain retired general. After my message, that general was never seen on TV again.) A signal quality of bad officership is to flip-flop on your positions. Another quality of bad officership is the willingness to support a clearly immoral policy. It would appear that one immoral campaign led to another. (And, it is not a recovery to state, “Belgrade was bombed on both Easters.”) As I’ve written before, the war in the Balkans was a three-sided religious war, with Bill Clinton supporting the only non-Christian side in the war.
Clark’s campaign ads say he will get us out of Iraq, but there is no mention of Bosnia or Haiti, which Clinton got us into without any justification. So, as you can see, a lengthy military career is not an automatic certificate of qualification for political leadership. (And, most Democratic candidates don't speak at Republican dinners.) No matter where one lands on the political spectrum, it helps to follow the campaign laws.
Myth # 3: “Clark is qualified to be president, because he is bipartisan.” There is an old saying, “If you don’t stand for something, then you’ll fall for anything.” I think this saying best sums up the “bipartisan” quality of Wesley Clark. Some people view the word “bipartisan” as signifying a good negotiator. Other people view the word “bipartisan” as signifying someone with no core values. I view Clark’s version of “bipartisan” as someone that will go “all over the map” to reach the ultimate goal. And, just what is Clark’s ultimate goal? Go back to the fact that he is a Rhodes scholar, and the ultimate goal of Cecil Rhodes: a global Socialist government, ruled by graduates of his program. Members of the Rhodes fellowship see themselves as a separate class of people, destined to rule over us common folk. Clark was born a Jew, raised as a Baptist, and became a Catholic. He has heaped praise on Republicans for years, but is running for president as a Democrat. Other than the dedication to world Socialism that undergirds the Rhodes program, what does Wesley Clark really stand for? Is he a true “bipartisan” negotiator; or, is he simply an “unhinged” power-grabber? Is he a commanding presence on the political battlefield, or a puppet of the Clintonista machine? If he gets elected, will he appoint Bill Clinton to his Cabinet? If he becomes the Democratic candidate, would Hillary Clinton be his running mate? And, if Clark is elected president, would he ultimately end up like another apparent “bipartisan” figure — Vince Foster?
Months before the presidential primary season began, an article about Clark’s entry into the race seems to have summed up his campaign potential. The article in the Christian Science Monitor quoted a political analyst as saying, “Someone has to be the anti-Dean....” And, with the revelation of a smoldering feud between Al Gore and the Clintons, it appears to me that Dean and Clark are both proxy soldiers in that feud. Now, does that sound like someone that you’d want to be your next president?
