Clark: Dark Horse or Clinton ?Stalking Horse??

[thedrifter]

10-03-2003

Clark: Dark Horse or Clinton ?Stalking Horse??



By Paul Connors



With his official announcement that he is a candidate for the Democratic Party?s presidential nomination in the 2004 election, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark became the 10th person seeking to unseat President Bush.



Within a week of his announcement, his poll figures placed him ahead of the party leadership?s (read Bill and Hillary and party Chairman Terry McAuliffe) least-favored candidate, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. This was not an altogether surprising turnaround, since the Clintons have been engaged in various degrees of cynical political manipulation since they arrived at the White House in January 1993. It seems that they just can?t let go of the reins of power.



Despite the Machiavellian machinations of the power couple from Chappaqua, there is much more that is relevant to the discussion of Wesley Clark as a potential future occupant of the Oval Office. Of late, the mainstream media, still dog-like in its devotions to the disgraced, but still charismatic former president and the ?junior? Senator who?s not really from New York, have played along as the dynamic duo of Democratic derring-do continue to unleash their particular brand of mischief. Wesley Clark is just one piece of that pie.



Even if we could separate the Clintons from this discussion (which of course, we can?t), there are reasons why the candidacy of the retired general from Arkansas deserves considerable scrutiny. While his resume would at first make him appear to be a viable candidate for the job, there are personal characteristics that make him poorly suited for the role as president of the United States. Since almost everyone following the Democratic field now knows his ?good? qualities, I will focus on those that I consider suspect.



First and foremost, Clark is not very well respected by his contemporaries in the U.S Army. Yes, he was first in his class at West Point and he did win a Silver Star and a couple of Purple Hearts in Vietnam as a captain. But that was then and this is now and there is a huge difference between the responsibilities and leadership skills required of a young company commander and a person who is expected to captain the ship of state and command its armed forces.



As he rose to the pinnacle of his Army career, where he served as the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR), Clark proved himself to be an only-fair leader in a job that requires both military competence and political skills. As the NATO commander charged with the now much-questioned war against Serbia in 1999, Clark found himself repeatedly outmaneuvered by Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic at the negotiating table. He came awfully close to triggering a shooting match between Russian and NATO troops when he ordered the British commander in Kosovo to drop paratroopers on the airport at Pristina after Russian troops had already occupied it. Clark?s British subordinate officer, Lt. Gen. Michael Jackson, risked his career and command when he correctly refused and said, ?I am not about to start World War III for you!?



Clark has been called many things by subordinates and peers alike. Subordinates have found him imperious, callous, mercurial, quick to point the finger and vainglorious to the point of obsession. Last week in a public discussion of Clark, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Hugh Shelton said that the decision by then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen to relieve Clark of his command early in August 1999 occurred because ?There were issues of integrity and character involved.?



In his brief period as a presidential candidate, Clark has already waffled and back-tracked in his statements of support for the administration?s actions in Iraq. Proudly calling himself a Democrat, Clark was embarrassed with the re-broadcasting of a televised statement from May 2001 where he praised and expressed support for the Bush administration and its key appointees at DoD, State and the National Security Adviser?s post. Moreover, he has said that he previously voted for Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.



Now, the overbearing need to qualify himself among Democratic Party activists as ?the anti-war general? has revealed a person who bases his public persona and positions on what is politically convenient, rather than on any set of strongly held beliefs. Of all the current Democratic Party contenders, Clark is the one candidate who lacks a real Democratic pedigree. Most pundits agree that for the majority of his military career, he was a Republican, but now that it is convenient, he has switched sides and declared as a candidate for the party that for the past 35 years has been anathema to almost all things military.



Make no mistake, Clark is an opportunist. His performance in last week?s Democratic debates showed a candidate with little or no preparation or real qualification to be president. In key areas where leadership would be required such as the economy and medical care, Clark left most viewers and pundits under-whelmed. His answers showed a real lack of insight into these and other key problems not normally of concern to senior military leaders.



So who is this general who wants to be president? Is he just another career soldier who believes he has another ?mission? that needs to be met? Or is he a stalking horse for the Clintons, who as I said earlier, just can?t seem to let go of the idea that they had to give up power and vacate 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?



Does he really see himself as another Dwight D. Eisenhower? Could he really be that vain and egocentric? Ike was the SACEUR during World War II and has been recognized by historians as the key persona in maintaining the often times fragile alliance between the United States, the United Kingdom and France. Clark on the other hand has been viewed as an egocentric careerist, bent on doing what?s in the best interests of Wesley Clark.



Numerous subordinates who have felt his wrath and countless superiors who have had to rein him in have all offered various versions of the same theme. It shows a man with disturbing character flaws that are very undesirable for one who aspires to become the leader of the Free World.



There is much that needs fixing in Washington and the list of things to do is long. The president (whoever that might be) needs to deal with a stumbling economy, an incredible loss of jobs to foreign countries, huge budget deficits, a military engaged in too may conflicts with too few people, and an American public tired of the lies and deceit that form the normal speech patterns of politicians from both sides of the political spectrum.



Do you want your next president to bear the imprimatur of the Clintons? Could you trust someone carrying their seal of approval? I couldn?t.



The United States of America needs a strong and confident president and commander-in-chief. The nation does not need a person of uncertain temperament with strings that reach back to Chappaqua and Little Rock.



Paul Connors is a Senior Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at paulconnors@hotmail.com. ? 2003 Paul Connors.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/c...43999385557745

Sempers,

Roger

[BLUEHAWK]

Good thread Roger -
If Clark is a stalking horse for the Clintons, then he will learn the meaning of rejection... and will probably learn that without them.