Generals Elect - tricks 65 Questions..LOL!!
By Lowell Ponte
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 16, 2004
THE MAN WHO IS NOT THERE COULD BE THE WINNER of Monday’s Iowa Democratic caucuses.
If current polls and trends are correct, three or four top candidates could end up late Monday night in a near-tie Iowa pileup, with several dwarves trying to spin Pyrrhic Victory for themselves out of the mush of expectations and voter fragmentation.
Standing above this train wreck, an unsoiled, undamaged General Wesley Clark (who refused to debate or run in Iowa) could then rally the disillusioned, coalesce pragmatic Democrats and emerge as the solid winner of the January 27 New Hampshire primary.
Clark may have entered the 2004 race as Hillary’s stalking horse, as a Clinton “smart bomb” who could be used to keep the convention open for a Hillary draft by preventing any other candidate from winning a clear majority of primary delegates.
(Yes, this might technically violate Democratic Party convention rules, but when have the Clintons ever been constrained by rules or ethics? And if Hillary is not a candidate in 2004, she would prefer that whoever the Democrats nominate will be too damaged to win and to become an incumbent blocking her return to the White House in 2008.)
But Clark’s rivals are shrinking before our eyes, making him appear taller and taller. Clark in his morning mirror might now see himself as the 2004 Democratic nominee and, with luck, the newly-elected President come this November.
Current frontrunner Howard Dean, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll, is viewed positively by 27 percent of Americans but negatively by 34 percent. And Dean’s negatives are growing faster than his positives, which seem already to have peaked.
Political experts will tell you that when 40 percent of voters feel negative about a candidate, he becomes inherently unelectable – because Americans tend to vote more reliably against candidates they dislike than for candidates they like. (Hillary polls nationally nowadays at around 43 percent negative…a kiss of political death she must overcome to become President.).
Rivals and pundits have also cunningly raised expectations so high for Dean in Iowa and in New Hampshire that anything less than a 10-point victory margin can be declared a Dean loss. To gain such a margin, Dean must pray that the vote against him continues to be split among several rivals. And Dean must pray that few reporters point out to voters how big the total vote is against him so that he can claim victories by winning only two to four out of every 10 votes cast.
Dean, ironically, has opened paths for General Clark. Dean attacked his rivals who are Washington insiders. Clark is foremost among other outsiders untainted by electoral politics and the Beltway. Dean reminded Democrats that to win they must reach out to white Southerners. Clark, although born in Greater Chicago like Hillary, grew up from age five in Arkansas and can win support in the South as both a career soldier and Arkansan.
Now plumped with truckloads of Clinton-linked cash and rising polls, General Clark is poised to become the next frontrunner in the 2004 Democratic race. With that in mind, herewith are 65 questions reporters ought to put to him:
General Clark, days ago you responded to a question about terrorism and September 11, 2001, from an editor at New Hampshire’s Concord Monitor by saying: “If I’m President of the United States…. We are not going to have one of these incidents.” This is a powerful guarantee coming from one of America’s most distinguished retired Generals. Sir, would you stipulate in writing and on videotape that if another terrorist attack of 9-11 magnitude happens in the U.S. while you are President, you and your entire Administration would resign within 24 hours?
General Clark, like other candidates you are reportedly a man of deep religious faith. You were not raised in the Jewish faith of your father, who died when you were very young, but in the Southern Baptist faith of the mother who moved your family to Arkansas. But as a decorated soldier in Vietnam, you converted to the Roman Catholic faith. Sir, what did you find inadequate or insufficient in the Southern Baptist religion that prompted your conversion to Catholicism?
General Clark, you have described yourself as “pro-abortion rights.” This is contrary to the doctrine of your adopted Roman Catholic Church, whose Bishop in La Crosse, Wisconsin, days ago issued a “Notification” to clergy and politicians that declares: “Catholic legislators who are members of the faithful of the Diocese of La Crosse and who continue to support procured abortion or euthanasia may not present themselves to receive Holy Communion. They are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, should they present themselves, until such time as they publicly renounce their support of these most unjust practices.” If the Pope issued such a notification for political officeholders applicable to the entireUnited States, would you resign the Presidency to comply? Or would you cease taking Holy Communion?
General Clark, you reportedly have said you “don’t have litmus tests” for Federal judicial positions, but you have also said “I’m not going to be appointing judges who are pro-life.” How do you square these seemingly contradictory statements? And given that your Roman Catholic Church opposes abortion, do you agree with those liberal Democratic senators who have systematically blocked votes on all of President George W. Bush’s Roman Catholic nominees to the Federal bench – in effect saying, “No Catholics Need Apply”? Would this religious exclusion of Catholics be your position as President?
General Clark, you have said that a woman should have the right to an abortion during her entire nine months of pregnancy and, more cryptically, “Life begins with the mother’s decision.” Princeton University Ethics Professor (and animal rights activist) Peter Singer has proposed giving parents up to a year after birth to perform what amounts to “post-natal abortion,” to kill a handicapped child that poses too many problems to itself or them. Twelve congressional Democrats have voted to allow the legal killing of a baby even after birth. If the mother has not decided whether her baby should live, why do you limit abortion rights only to the months leading up to the moment of birth? And if you do favor such limits, then why not protect the rights of a seven, eight, or nine-month-old baby able to survive outside its mother’s womb?
General Clark, speaking of women’s rights you have said that you “would not reinstate the draft.” But you have also reportedly advocated requiring young women to register for the draft when they turn 18 just as young men are now required to do, because you “agreed that draft registration for women was necessary to set the nation on the path toward true equality for women.” Notorious draft dodger Bill Clinton, who also advocated equality for women, left the system unchanged – neither requiring women to register nor ending the slavery of military conscription completely. If the draft becomes necessary during your presidency, will it be used evenhandedly so that 53 percent of conscripts are women? Would you treat women and men equally in who gets assigned to combat?
General Clark, you have said that homosexuality is not a sin, that the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gays should be “reviewed,” and that our military should “welcome” homosexuals like any other patriotic Americans who want to serve in our armed services. Should barracks be completely integrated sexually, with men and women of every sexual preference sleeping in the same room? Should traditional U.S. Marines training (which includes two warriors sharing the same sleeping bag) be likewise sexually integrated? The same for latrines and showers? Should gender and/or sexual preference be a factor in deciding who gets promoted?
General Clark, you have supported the anti-Semitic, anti-Asian, anti-Caucasian racial preferences used for admissions at the University of Michigan. Would you please spell out exactly how much racial favoritism a Clark Administration would give to African-Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans? How do you square this with the Constitutional principle that all citizens are to be treated equally under law and by taxpayer-funded institutions?
General Clark, the Democratic Party is working frantically to restore the right to vote to felons where current laws take such votes away. In Florida those felons who illegally voted in 2000 were registered, as one would expect, 85 percent Democratic. Democrats are also working urgently to restore votes to those in mental hospitals and asylums, apparently because the mentally impaired are also likely to vote Democratic. Do you favor restoring votes to felons and the mentally ill? If such votes are restored, how will pandering to these two voting blocs alter, if at all, the policies of the Democratic Party and your Administration?
General Clark, you have said: “I’m in favor of the American flag amendment” outlawing flag desecration. Many in the Democratic Party believe that burning an American flag is a protected form of free speech. Why do call them wrong? And how severe a civil and/or criminal penalty would you impose on those who burned an American flag? How big a fine? How much jail time? If this issue is big enough to warrant your support for a Constitutional Amendment, should not the penalties for burning an American flag should be severe?
General Clark, you on CNN once said: “I have got 20 some odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons should join the United States Army, we have them.” You told a Washington Post interviewer: “I support the Second Amendment. People like firearms, they feel secure with firearms, they should keep their firearms.” But you also support the assault weapon ban, support the Brady gun law (although you told the Washington Post you do not know what that law does), and you favor requiring “fingerprinting of guns and [creation of] a national database.” You want to leave gun manufacturers open to lawsuits by trial lawyers (who contribute 40 percent of all donations to the Democratic Party) because of the “design, distribution, security, or sale” of their products. You want to “retain the records of gun purchase background checks” (contrary to today’s law, which holds that no national records be kept lest this become de facto gun registration and lead to confiscation), and more. How do you square your support for virtually every policy advocated by anti-gun groups with being pro-Second Amendment? Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the National Rifle Association?
General Clark, you advocate a “progressive” income tax reform that would repeal the Bush tax cuts for “the top 2%” of income earners. You have said of these bi-partisan Bush tax cuts, “If it weren’t for the law, you call that theft.” You say you support “some degree of redistribution of income” in America to put a safety net under those at the bottom. Do you also have a ceiling, a level beyond which nobody’s taxes should ever be allowed to rise, no matter how “rich” they are? Or like most socialists, would you favor taxing away 99 percent of the income of the rich, as it was under Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Or even a tax rate of 103 percent, as it is for some in Sweden? Where, if anywhere, would you draw a line in percentage of income and say that taxation will never be permitted to rise above it? And as with racial preferences, why do you not think it violates Constitutional principle when government taxes people unequally – taking zero percent of the income of some and 41 percent or more of the income of others? At what level of taxation does the confiscation of the fruits of a citizen’s labor become de facto slavery?
General Clark, Lowell Ponte has documented here and here and here how as commander of Fort Hood, Texas, in 1993 you “lent” 17 pieces of armor and 15 active service personnel under your command to the Clinton Administration’s assault on the Branch Davidian church 40 miles away in Waco. Your right-hand second in command, General Peter J. Schoomaker, represented you at the meeting with Attorney General Janet Reno where this lethal assault, resulting in the deaths of 82 Branch Davidian men, women, children and babies, was planned in detail. This use of military equipment and personnel against lightly-armed civilians inside our borders was almost certainly a violation of the Posse Comitatus Law enacted to protect Americans from military tyranny. Under the Nuremburg Laws against war crimes, was your role that of a commander who passively acquiesced to the political use of weapons under his control, like a “good German?” Or were you an active participant in planning and executing the assault that killed 82 Americans at Waco? Have you ever apologized to families or friends of the victims or to the American people for your role in this nightmare? Have you ever regarded yourself as a terrorist or criminal for your role at Waco? What was the role of co-Presidents Bill and Hillary Clinton in the decisions made concerning Waco? What connection do you see between your cooperation with the Clinton Administration at Waco and the rapid promotions that advanced your career during the Clinton Administration after Waco? As President, would you use military weaponry against small groups of peaceful Americans with which you had political or religious differences, as Bill Clinton did?
General Clark, as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces during the Clinton war against Christian Yugoslavia to defend Muslim Kosovo, you on June 12, 1999, commanded subordinate British General Michael Jackson to militarily attack Russian paratroopers that had just landed at a local airfield. General Jackson refused, saying: “Sir, I’m not starting World War III for you.” In retrospect, General Clark, are you grateful that Gen. Jackson refused your order? Were you in a state of mental….agitation when you ordered him to attack these Russians? You speak fluent Russian yourself – and would be the first American President to do so -- so did you make any attempt to talk directly with the Russian commander at the airfield? What role did this or other controversial incidents involving your behavior play in the Clinton Administration’s decision to relieve you from command in the Balkans two months ahead of schedule? Why did the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff say that you had a serious deficiency of “character?” Are the rumors true that top Pentagon brass decided you were unworthy of a fourth star, which you then received by begging for it directly from President Clinton? If you were America’s Commander-in-Chief, would you relieve from command a battlefield general who nearly precipitated World War III as you almost did? Given your history, why should any American feel secure with your finger in control of the nuclear button?
General Clark, you in recent weeks have been critical of President Bush’s policy in Iraq, calling him “all bully and no pulpit.” But in the April 10, 2003, Times of London you praised both President Bush and ally British Prime Minister Tony Blair for their “resolve” and success. Two weeks prior to Congress passing its Iraq war resolution supporting the President, according to the DrudgeReport, you testified before the House Armed Services Committee that Saddam Hussein “has chemical and biological weapons” and that his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons threatened both that region and the United States. “The clock is ticking on this,” you told the congressional committee. So what does it say about your judgment, then and now, that you shift position with whatever political wind is blowing at the moment? Or that you take whatever position seems most politically advantageous to yourself at the time? Is this the steady, reliable leadership a President is expected to provide?
General Clark, you reportedly only became a registered Democrat in September 2003. On May 11, 2001, you were the keynote speaker at the Pulaski County, Arkansas, Republican Party Lincoln Day Dinner and fundraiser. In that videotaped speech you praised President Bush’s foreign policy and those who shaped it. Newsweek’s Howard Fineman reported that you told the Colorado Governor and a friend that “I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls,” calls that the Weekly Standard confirmed you never made. Does this mean that the Republican Party was your first choice, and that you became a Democrat like a jilted lover on the rebound? Does it mean that you are so cynical, unprincipled and power-hungry that you would climb into the Oval Office from either the Left or Right side? How can Democrats be sure that, once elected, you would not revert to being a Republican? If you become part of the 2004 Democratic ticket, top or bottom, will you seek payment for the many, many GOP commercials using videotape of your fundraising speeches for the Republican Party praising President Bush? If so, how much money will you ask? In your 2001 book Waging Modern War, you wrote eloquently about witnessing the integration of the Little Rock schools and how this advance for civil rights moved you – done, of course, by former General and Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. Was this when you fell in love with the party of the Great Emancipator and moved, until recently, away from the ruling Arkansas party of the slave owners, the KKK, Jim Crow and Bull Connor? Does returning to the Democratic Party leave you feeling dirty, morally corrupted and ashamed?
And finally, General Clark, if you do not win a place on the Democratic Party’s 2004 ticket – and if incumbent Vice President Dick Cheney must (God forbid) step down before November for health reasons – would you be willing to become Vice President on the Republican ticket and in the second George W. Bush term? This is really what you prayed for in the first place, isn’t it? |
