Clark -A negative notice in New Hampshire. "Union Leader"
______________________________________________
Commentary:
Americans should be cautious
about considering Gen. Clark
By DAN K. THOMASSON
Guest Commentary
WELL, THE REAL Gen. Wesley Clark may finally have stood up, and what he turns out to be is someone Americans should be very cautious about before they consider him for the nation's most important job.
If any semblance of judgment and civility is required for occupying the White House, and I grant you there is sometimes cause to wonder, then Clark has pretty much disqualified himself from the Democratic nomination by accusing George W. Bush of direct responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on America. "You can't blame something like this on lower level intelligence officers," Clark contended in a scathing denouncement of the President.
Even those among the other eight candidates in the field who are most critical of Bush's performance haven't gone that far, and for good reasons. It is preposterous and unfair and it lends support to every crackpot theory expounded by the lunatic fringe that the President was part of a conspiracy that allowed this awful act to bolster designs on Iraq.
That may not be exactly what Clark meant, but it is clearly the implication left, especially when his charge is added to those of other critics who see sinister motives in the White House's reluctance to turn over all the classified material about 9/11 to a commission investigating the disaster. For that reason alone the administration should cooperate with the commission.
Clark's allegations go far beyond this. They also ignore one basic fact. The planning for 9/11 and the intelligence lapses that allowed it to succeed stretch back well into the administration of Bill Clinton. If Bush, who was in office less than one year when this took place, can be accused of direct responsibility, why not Clinton?
The explanation for that seems relatively obvious. Clark is Clinton's pal and, in fact, the former President was among those who encouraged the general to seek the office despite the fact he has an Army-wide reputation for being difficult, and from what any one can tell has only recently shown any concern for domestic problems. But no one should be surprised by the general's diatribe. He was fired from his job as the supreme allied commander of NATO, a post once held by Dwight Eisenhower, for unclear reasons that may or may not have involved personality conflicts. He can be a lose cannon according to those who served with him.
It is rather odd that Clark's advisers allowed these scathing charges to take place the same day he was delivering a health care plan that included guaranteeing insurance to 13.1 million Americans under age 22. The accusations against Bush obscured the domestic proposals. If anyone ever needed some credibility in the domestic area it is this guy, who spent most of his adult life in the military, where he developed a reputation as having a Napoleonic complex. That may or may not be a fair assessment, but who is to know? So far he has been given a free ride by the media when it comes to explaining to voters just who he is and what he has stood for over the years.
The other candidates from bottom to top have long political histories. Their public personas are well defined, as are their longtime positions on the issues. That is hardly the case with Clark, who most Americans had never heard of until he entered the race near the top as a fresh face. After all, he is a four-star general isn't he? Oh yeah. He is also a Rhodes Scholar. But what else is he? Isn't that enough?
It might be for some folks, but how often do we have to be burned by casting our lots with candidates about whom we know very little? Remember Jimmy Carter? We knew he served a term as the governor of Georgia and was a former Navy man who became a peanut farmer. What we got was a man who had almost no concept of the job, including its ceremonial responsibilities, and whose whining and vacillating lowered U.S. prestige overseas and caused considerable domestic disruption.
Clark's quick ascent says more about the other candidates than it does him, and that is too bad. At least four of the others have more experience and understanding of the needs of government than he does. Voters should demand to know a whole lot more about the general before considering him worthy. If this attack on the President is any indication of his temperament and judgment then he may not be suited
theunionleader.com |
