Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mark Steyn: Here comes General Clark, his policies will follow shortly
The Sunday Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 09/21/03 | Mark Steyn

Posted on 09/20/2003 3:34:34 PM PDT by Pokey78

For the last year, General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Commander of Nato, has been on CNN thrice nightly on one show or another.

He is a handsome man in an unnerving kind of way. He never blinks, presumably because long ago some adviser told him that not blinking projects strength or some such. So instead he just stares intensely directly into the camera. If you've ever sat opposite the serial killer on the last Tube to Morden, you'll know the look.

Anyway, night after night, Bill Clinton's old Arkansas pal and the Kollossus of Kosovo has been telling interviewers that he has not yet made up his mind whether to run for President or, indeed, whether he's even a Democrat.

Most of us figured this was the usual apple sauce and that the famously arrogant Clark was just waiting for the right moment. Last week was definitely the right moment. Howard Dean, the insurgent Leftie from Vermont whose metaphorical battle cry of "Give me ideological purity or give me death" has so roused the party faithful, has successfully killed off all the other viable candidates, mainly by driving them nuts and dragging them far farther to the Left than any sane man would want to be.

Last week, though, Hurricane Howard appeared to have temporarily run out of puff.

So in jumped Gen Clark. Brilliant timing. As if to underline that it is now Dean vs Clark, Senator John Edwards, the pretty-boy trial lawyer from North Carolina, officially launched his campaign the day before the General, and nobody noticed.

The media trampled him into the asphalt as they stampeded on to Arkansas to coo over the Democrats' new "white knight". And here's the thing: Clark was terrible. I assumed all the time that he was on CNN claiming to be wrestling with his decision that he had a campaign platform in the freezer all ready to warm up once he gave the signal. But it seems he genuinely hadn't made up his mind.

Judging from his initial appearances, he still hasn't. He is running for President because he thinks he is the best man for the job. Why? Well, no tricky follow-up questions, please: he'll get back to you later on that.

At his first campaign stop at a Florida restaurant, The Washington Post reported that "Clark said he has few specific policy ideas to offer voters right now . . . Voters need to give him time to think things through."

I sympathise, up to a point. Political candidates are supposed to have plans for things most of us never give a thought to, like a prescription drug plan for the elderly.

I don't have a prescription drug plan for the elderly, and I wouldn't want to improvise one in a Florida diner. But surely there's a couple of issues the White Knight's had time to think through. For example, I don't know whether you heard about it but there was a war in Iraq a couple of months back. It was in all the papers. So what's General Clark's position on that?

Here he is on Thursday: "General Wesley K Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorised the United States to invade Iraq." Here he is on Friday: " 'Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war,' Clark said before a speech at the University of Iowa." Got that? Everybody else on the planet knows what his or her position on Iraq is except General Clark.

A Democratic strategist told me that, well, Clark's got into the race late, so it is hardly surprising he is not quite, as the phrase has it, ready for primetime. Au contraire, primetime seems to be the only thing he is ready for: he spent the run-up to it, the war itself and the aftermath in television studios across the continent pointing out everything that Bush was doing wrong without ever acquiring a coherent position of his own.

What Clark's media-boosters like is that he's sophisticated, he's nuanced, he doesn't see everything as "yes" or "no". As he told The New York Times when asked whether he'd have voted to authorise war or not: "I think that's too simple a question." Unfortunately, most questions are: you have to vote yea or nay; and the general seems to feel that sort of thing's beneath him.

What we do know, though, is that, if he had been President these last three years, the Taliban and Saddam would still be in power.

His response to September 11, as argued in a weirdly narcissistic essay, would have been to have "helped the United Nations create an International Criminal Tribunal on International Terrorism" - no doubt chaired by a distinguished former chief justice of Libya or Syria. A team of Hague lawyers would be in Kabul today making solid progress with Mullah Omar on a plea-bargain from Osama. That's the stuff.

Why did General Clark on Friday stage the world's fastest retreat from his position on Thursday? Because his "supporters" were outraged to hear he would have backed the war. On 99 per cent of domestic issues, Clark is in bland unthinking compliance with party orthodoxy, with not an idea in his pretty little head.

The only rationale for his candidacy is that he is the soldier for the party that doesn't like soldiering. He supposedly neutralises the Democrats' national security problem: they can say, hey, sure, we're anti-war, but that's because our guy is a four-star general who knows a thing or two about it . . . That's all they need him for: cover.

It is not going to work. All General Jello does is remind voters of what they dislike about the Dems on this war: their weaselly evasive oppositionism. All his military background does is keep military matters at the forefront of the campaign.

He will be asked why he got fired from the Nato job, why his buddy Bill Clinton declined to save him, why neither his civilian nor uniformed bosses - Bill Cohen, the Defence Secretary, and General Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs - attended his retirement ceremony, a huge public snub for a four-star general.

It is hard to argue that Iraq was a disaster when, in the crappy little war you, General Clark, presided over, the most powerful military on the planet took 78 days of aerial bombardment to destroy just over a dozen tanks; hard to argue that our boys shouldn't be getting picked off on the ground in Iraq when in your war they stayed up at 15,000 feet, nights only, bombing hospitals, commuter trains, refugee convoys, the Chinese embassy, etc; hard to argue that Iraq wasn't worth it when, by most accounts, there's more ethnic cleansing (Muslims against Christians) going on in "liberated" Kosovo than there was in Slobo's day.

If General Clark's the candidate, he'll be the embodiment of ineffectual Clintonian warmongering.

If I were a Democrat, I would go with Howard Dean, the loopy peacenik who doesn't know a thing about war and doesn't care who knows it. On Iraq, he sounds passionate and angry, not shifty and equivocal. And on health, schools and the stuff Democrats and media really care about, Dean can yak away for hours so glibly there'll be no time left to talk about peripheral trivia like terrorism and national security.

If the objective is to squash Bush's war advantage, vote Dean and move on to domestic policy. Vote for the general and you're stuck talking war till next November with a candidate who is not up to it.

Unless, of course, there's a third scenario, which, given last week's lamentable performance, makes a strange kind of sense. General Clark is merely an unwitting "stalking horse", designed to weaken both Dean and Bush just enough to enable the Democrats' real white knight to jump in: waiting in the wings, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; electionpresident; hillary; marksteyn; marksteynlist; wesleyclark
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 next last

1 posted on 09/20/2003 3:34:35 PM PDT by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Howlin; riley1992; Miss Marple; deport; Dane; sinkspur; steve; kattracks; JohnHuang2; ...

2 posted on 09/20/2003 3:35:33 PM PDT by Pokey78 ("I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation." Wesley Clark to Russert)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
He is a handsome man in an unnerving kind of way.

The hits just keep on comin'!

3 posted on 09/20/2003 3:40:03 PM PDT by sirchtruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
>>Howard Dean, the loopy peacenik <<

That's too funny!
4 posted on 09/20/2003 3:42:15 PM PDT by netmilsmom (I got "Treason" from the Library today-was bought 9/3- Think libs are ruling the book list?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Ross Perot is back, and cuts a dashing figure in his uniform.
5 posted on 09/20/2003 3:44:07 PM PDT by Imal (The deadliest weapon is patience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
Hillary The Queen Bee brought in Ashley Clark to soften up the rest of the field so the Democrats will do anything to win, including give her first shot at a mortally wounded President Bush.
6 posted on 09/20/2003 3:44:55 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Good post. You forget the details of Kosovo without reminders from time to time.
7 posted on 09/20/2003 3:56:01 PM PDT by jwalburg (You're not moderate just because you know leftier leftists than yourself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Unless, of course, there's a third scenario,... Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Uh, Oh.

As usual with Steyn, when he homes in on you - the jig is up!

8 posted on 09/20/2003 3:57:20 PM PDT by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
General Clark is merely an unwitting "stalking horse", designed to weaken both Dean and Bush just enough to enable the Democrats' real white knight to jump in: waiting in the wings, Hillary Rodham Clinton

How about that? Mark Steyn agrees with me!


9 posted on 09/20/2003 3:57:34 PM PDT by Old Sarge (Serving You... on Operation Noble Eagle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: goldstategop
IF Hitlery goes on another listening tour, I hope she gets to hear what I have to say...
11 posted on 09/20/2003 4:03:22 PM PDT by blanknoone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
My mom and I were talking about this phenom - the liberals do not know what they believe - and they always say either they have to consult with staff or with the people.

I have noted, that Tom McClintock has NEVER - EVER - ONE TIME said any such drivel. Tom came out of the shoot - saying only one thing - I HAVE A PLAN TO TAKE CA BACK TO THE GREAT STATE IT USED TO BE. He didn't ask for approval from anyone - he already knew what he believed - and he believed what he knew was the right thing to do.
12 posted on 09/20/2003 4:06:07 PM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - "The Greatest Nation on the Face of the Earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: notorious vrc
Does this mean my pc has a worm?
13 posted on 09/20/2003 4:07:45 PM PDT by gov_bean_ counter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Steyn is so right concerning Clark.
14 posted on 09/20/2003 4:13:19 PM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
Is there some background on Clark on another thread? I imagine Freepers have alot of information first-hand.
15 posted on 09/20/2003 4:17:59 PM PDT by Praxeologue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
General Jello Bump.
16 posted on 09/20/2003 4:19:56 PM PDT by bootyist-monk (Thunder makes all the noise; lightning gets the job done)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter; MEG33; prairiebreeze
This is Clarks latest it carefully and let it sink in...

There are a lot of good people running for president," said the retired four-star general. "I need time to analyze what they stand for, and then develop some ideas about what I stand for. Then I can compare them with me and decide who would make the better president."

The man is not ready for primetime.

17 posted on 09/20/2003 4:20:07 PM PDT by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: Kennard
Go to the latest threads page.Type in Wesley Clark in "search".
19 posted on 09/20/2003 4:23:32 PM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dog
You couldn't make up this kind of stuff if you tried.
20 posted on 09/20/2003 4:24:13 PM PDT by gov_bean_ counter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson