Posted on 09/17/2003 8:12:48 AM PDT by jmstein7
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS “TWO STARS,” Senator Hillary Clinton of New York and retired four-star General Wesley Clark. This is what former President Bill Clinton, according to the New York Times, told a gathering of big campaign donors in Chappaqua in early September.
General Clark now says he will announce his candidacy for President near his home in Little Rock, Arkansas, on Wednesday, September 17. At his side, reports Fox News Channel, will be the co-chair of his campaign, former First Lady of Arkansas and the United States Hillary Clinton, although the Clark campaign now says they may have “misunderstood” the freshman senator from New York..
These “two stars” could become the 2004 Democratic “dream ticket,” if they can agree who should be on top and who on the bottom. Both were born in Illinois and moved to Arkansas, but their star-crossed paths would be very different.
Hillary Clinton began as a “Goldwater Girl” who at first followed her father’s Republican inclinations. The 1960s at Wellesley College and Yale Law School radicalized her. Hillary Rodham became an activist supporter of the Black Panthers, a law intern in the office of the attorneys for the Communist Party USA, and the young bride of an aspiring politician in the one-party Democratic State of Arkansas.
Wesley Clark was taken to Arkansas at age five after the death of his father. He would attend West Point, graduating first in his class in 1966. He then attended Oxford University in England as a Rhodes Scholar, like Bill Clinton. But where Clinton womanized and led anti-war demonstrations in Europe against the United States, Clark studied and earned a Masters Degree.
While America was rocked by anti-war and anti-military demonstrations during the 1960s, Clark served in Vietnam, where he was wounded in combat and earned both Bronze and Silver Stars. His military career bridges 34 years, including service as commander of all U.S. forces in Latin America and NATO Europe, as well as command of the Serbia-Kosovo conflict.
In keeping with the apolitical traditions of our military, Clark, 58, did not decide he was, or register as, a member of the Democratic Party until August 2003.
But analysts calculate that the moment he announces his candidacy, Clark will rank among the top five out of 10 prominent Democrats seeking the Presidency. A Southerner, he will vault past Senators such as Bob Graham of Florida and John Edwards of North Carolina, both of whom will thus see their hopes of being the traditional Southern “ticket-balancers” for northern candidates dashed.
If Clark enters the race, a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found, he would likely immediately peel off two points from the 15 percent of Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO), two points from the 13 of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, one point from the 12 of Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and three points from the 11 percent support of Senator John Forbes Kerry (D-MA), the one other Democrat running as a decorated Vietnam War veteran. This would deflate more than a quarter of Kerry’s support, dealing what could be a fatal blow to his flagging campaign. Clark would enter the race with nine percent support.
“I’ve got some heavy artillery that can come in. I’ve got good logistics, and I’ve got strategic mobility,” said Clark to Newsweek Magazine, using metaphors sure to appeal to antiwar peacenik Democrats.
In fact he does appear to be supported by much of the Clintons’ political war machine. Among those flocking to his campaign are Clinton veteran gutter fighters Mark Fabiani, Bruce Lindsey, Bill Oldaker, Vanessa Weaver, George Bruno, Skip Rutherford, Peter Knight, Ron Klain and perhaps even former Clinton deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes, among others.
The Clintons’ sock puppet installed by them to head the Democratic National Committee, Terry McAuliffe, had already ordered an extra podium for General Clark for the scheduled September 25 New York City debate among Democratic presidential aspirants.
In addition to Hillary as his campaign co-chair, the General’s Draft Clark for President 2004 organization reportedly already has 166 professional coordinators in all 50 states.
The Clinton “orchestration” behind Clark’s campaign is so apparent that commentators are already speculating whether General Clark is running for himself – or as a stalking horse for Hillary and/or as a puppet for Bill. Is all this being arranged to knock down rivals and clear the way for a Clinton-Clark “C-C Rider” ticket in 2004?
The Achilles Heel for Democrats has been their widely-perceived weakness on national defense and national security issues. President Bill Clinton tried to remedy this with strange military interventions, from Haiti to Kosovo. (He likewise tried to remedy the Democrats’ perceived soft-on-crime image with his symbolic “100,000 cops” campaign and support for the death penalty.)
Having a General Wesley Clark on the 2004 ticket to cover Democratic shortcomings could help conceal this weakness. Indeed, hardcore Lefties such as Michael Moore become almost orgasmic when they envision a debate between General Clark and Texas Air National Guard veteran President George W. Bush. “I know,” writes Moore, “who the winner is going to be.”
But those like Moore might be going off half-cocked with such enthusiasm for a host of reasons.
As this column documented almost three weeks ago, General Wesley Clark “is a very peculiar man with facets to his personality, behavior and history that will seem creepy and frightening to people of both the Right and Left. To know him is not to love him.”
While commanding NATO troops in defense of Muslim Kosovo and against Serbian Christians, for example, the hot-headed Clark commanded a subordinate British General to attack Russian troops that had landed without NATO permission at the airport in Kosovo’s capital. (Clark speaks fluent Russian but chose not even to talk with the Russian troops before attacking them.)
The British General Sir Mike Jackson reportedly refused Clark’s risky orders, saying: “I’m not going to start the Third World War for you!”
Others who interviewed Gen. Clark in Kosovo were shocked by his casual talk about how he would launch military strikes against Hungary if it tried to send fuel to the Christian Serbians, or against Russian ships if they entered the war zone.
Gen. Clark in the Balkans also pursued policies that increased civilian casualties, such as deliberate bombing from high altitude and his policy to cut off fuel, food and energy from the civilians of Belgrade in wintertime. Clark also cozied up to at least one man accused of war crimes and ethnic cleansing, Bosnian commander Ratko Mladic.
“How,” investigative reporter Robert Novak quotes one diplomat as saying of Wesley Clark, “could they let a man with such a lack of judgment be (Supreme Allied Commander of Europe)?”
Do antiwar, peace-activist supporters of Howard Dean really want this kind of twitchy-fingered militarist hot-head a heartbeat away from the nuclear button? Would they really want a Commander-in-Chief Wesley Clark?
Clark’s incompetence, disregard for human life, dishonesty and criticism of Clinton policies cost him his command. President Clinton and Defense Secretary William Cohen removed Clark months ahead of schedule.
But this did not alter the special bond between Clark and the Clintons that began in 1993, and that is evident today in their effort to control his presidential campaign.
What the national media are not telling you, of course, is that General Clark’s ascent to military four-stardom was itself a political act orchestrated by the Clintons.
This might have been motivated by gratitude, an emotion the Clintons scarcely ever feel for those of their servants they routinely betray. More likely it was satisfaction to find a high-ranking military man who would serve them with more loyalty than he showed to his oath or to the Constitution or to the military that the Clintons loathe (and that in turn loathes them).
This was, after all, the Clinton era, in which officers in U.S. Marines commando training were given mysterious questionnaires asking if they would obey a command to shoot American citizens who disobeyed a law that required them to disarm. By a similar method, Communist China selected the elite troops who could be trusted to gun down 1989 student protestors at Tiananmen Square.
In 1993 Wesley Clark, after a solid-but-not-stellar military career, was commanding the 1st Cavalry Division at a sweaty 339-square-mile base in Texas called Fort Hood. On a late winter day his office got a call from Democratic Texas Governor Ann Richards (later defeated and replaced by George W. Bush).
The Governor had an urgent matter to discuss. Crazies about 40 miles north of Fort Hood in Waco, Texas, had killed Federal agents, she said. If newly sworn-in President Bill Clinton signed a waiver setting aside the Posse Commitatus Act, which generally prohibits our military from using its arms against American citizens inside our borders, could Fort Hood supply tanks, men, and equipment to deal with the wackos at Waco?
Wesley Clark’s command at Fort Hood “lent” 17 pieces of armor and 15 active service personnel under his command to the Waco Branch Davidian operation. Whether Clark himself helped direct the assault on the Davidian church using this military force at Waco has not been documented, but it certainly came from his command with his approval.
Eighty-two men, women, children and babies – including two babies “fire aborted” as their mothers’ bodies writhed in the flames of that Clinton holocaust – died from the attack using military equipment from Clark’s command.
“Planning for this final assault involved a meeting between Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno and two military officers,” this column reported, “who developed the tactical plan used but who have never been identified. Some evidence and analysis suggests that Wesley Clark was one of these two who devised what happened at Waco.”
“Clark is more Clinton than Eisenhower,” writes Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard. His career advanced via politics, not the battlefield.
After Waco, Clark in April 1994 was promoted to Director of Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon, which meant he could see and consult with the Clintons easily. Soon thereafter he was promoted to Commander of all U.S. Latin American Forces, and a year thereafter to the ultimate title of SACEUR, commander of all the NATO forces in Europe, a position Clark would hold until he retired in May 2000.
Even Clark’s vaunted fourth star as a general was unearned, according to Robert Novak. It was twice rejected as undeserved by Pentagon brass, but then was awarded by his patron Bill Clinton after Clark begged the President for it.
“Clark,” wrote Novak, “is the perfect model of a 1990s political four-star general.” The Clintons love him. The troops he has commanded, by contrast, call him the “Ultimate Perfumed Prince.”
But his promotion to a four-star general, and now to a Presidential candidate, must have involved more than Clark’s slavish obedience to the Clintons and their agenda, and more than his background as a fellow Little Rocker Arkansan. The Clintons, as their use of private detectives and secret police attests, like to use people they can blackmail – people over whom they hold some dark secret as a threat.
Perhaps General Wesley Clark was more intimately and directly involved in the deaths at Waco than anybody has reported. Perhaps he has some other secret shame or disgrace. For whatever reason, the Clintons seem confident that they have him under their complete control.
This megalomaniacal, manipulative couple would not be advancing the candidacy of General Wesley Clark unless they were sure that they control him – and that his candidacy will serve their own selfish interests.
Having read this column, please take a moment to re-read my August 25 previous investigation into General Wesley Clark. Can you imagine any decent American, right-wing or left-wing, voting for such a person?
True in principle, but we're in the concrete. Dims want to forget 9/11, but they can't. They want some messianic figure to assure them they are safe because, beneath all their pacifist "root-cause" and "live&let-live" pronouncements is fear. Also, Clarke is a UN'er, which still appeals to the dreams and aspirations of the college edicated sheeple; they'll overlook any bloodletting in the face of this. That's the pschizophrenic character of the dim base, they talk peace, but like the kind of people who don't mind "breaking eggs to make an omelet" ie, Castro, Lenin, Mao and the like.
The dim aspirants are jokes, and even the dim hard core realizes this. Clarke cuts an impressive figure next to this crowd; most will go away in exchange for a few bucks and a fancy title. This smells like Clinton's work, but the question is will Clinton retain his position if Clarke gets the upper hand?
We live in interesting times, to say the least.
The democrats have NOTHING to be afraid OF... the elected republicans are mostly cowards.. their afraid of being called "MEAN SPIRITED"...
I say Ann Coulter for President and Tancredo for Vice Prez... turn some light on in this kitchen and watch the roaches scramble for cover.... Just the debates and tv COMMERIALS WOULD BE WORTH IT ALONE... Certain words will galvanize Americans... TRAITORS, SOCIALISTS, SEDITION, CHILD MOLESTERS( for the democrats have surely molested every child in America) for decades....
Clark is a dangerous man.
Confrontation over Pristina airport
Nato was taken aback by the Russians' arrival.
Details of Russia's surprise occupation of Pristina airport at the end of the Kosovo war are revealed in a new BBC documentary on the conflict.
For the first time, the key players in the tense confrontation between Nato and Russian troops talk about the stand-off which jeopardised the entire peacekeeping mission.
The Russians, who played a crucial role in persuading Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to end the war, had expected to police their own sector of Kosovo, independent of Nato.
When they did not get it, they felt double-crossed.
As Nato's K-For peacekeepers prepared to enter the province on 12 June, they discovered the Russians had got there first.
A contingent of 200 troops, stationed in Bosnia, was already rolling towards Pristina airport.
'Third World War'
General Wesley Clark, Nato's supreme commander, immediately ordered 500 British and French paratroopers to be put on standby to occupy the airport.
''I called the [Nato] Secretary General [Javier Solana] and told him what the circumstances were,'' General Clark tells the BBC programme Moral Combat: Nato at War.
''He talked about what the risks were and what might happen if the Russian's got there first, and he said: 'Of course you have to get to the airport'.
General Jackson: Backed by UK Government
''I said: 'Do you consider I have the authority to do so?' He said: 'Of course you do, you have transfer of authority'.''
But General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander.
"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.
General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were [looking at] a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''
Russian plans
The Russian advance party took the airport unopposed. The world watched nervously.
A senior Russian officer, General Leonid Ivashev, tells the BBC how the Russians had plans to fly in thousands of troops.
''Let's just say that we had several airbases ready. We had battalions of paratroopers ready to leave within two hours,'' he said.
Amid fears that Russian aircraft were heading for Pristina, General Clark planned to order British tanks and armoured cars to block the runways to prevent any transport planes from landing.
General Clark said he believed it was ''an appropriate course of action''. But the plan was again vetoed by Britain.
Partition fears
Instead, he asked neighbouring countries, including Hungary and Romania not to allow Russian aircraft to overfly their territory.
Russians are not under direct Nato command
During the stand-off, Moscow insisted its troops would be answerable only to its own commanders.
Nato refused to accept this, predicting it would lead to the partition of Kosovo into an ethnic Albanian south and a Serbian north.
A deal on the deployment of Russian peacekeepers was reached in early July.
The Russians now operate as part of K-For in sectors controlled by Nato states, but are not directly under Nato's command.
Egads, after Weasley announced I haven't seen that much slobbering from the talking heads since my children were teething. ick!
Whenever referring to the Russians, Clark repeatedly referred to them as the "Soviets," and didn't seem to understand that they were [ostensibly] working with NATO. His conversations always gave the impression that he had no clue that the Cold War ever ended.
We had indications that the Russians may decide that they wanted their own piece of land to administer. They've historically always supported their "Slav brethren" in the Balkans, and desperately want to be seen as a player on the world stage again.
So when Wesley received word that it looked like the Russians might move from their area in Bosnia, and head for Kosovo, he ordered this liaison officer, "Don't allow the Soviets to leave their compound."
So the liaison officer went to see the Russian Brigade Commander, and passed on Clark's desire that the Russians not leave. The Commander answered something to the effect that Russia will do what it thinks it needs to in the region, and that he would follow the orders of his superiors.
When this was passed along to Clark, he went nuts. Clark berated the liaison officer, and said that it was the officer's duty not to allow the Russians to leave their compound!
When the officer told Clark that the Russians were already lining up their combat vehicles he really started bouncing off the walls. The officer asked Clark how he expected the Brigade to be stopped by only one person armed with a 9mm pistol. Clark said, "I don't care what you have to do, just don't let them leave their compound."
At that point the Russians were already lined up in a column that stretched though the gates of their compound. Upon hearing this Clark mentioned a bridge that they'd have to cross shortly after leaving the compound, and told the liaison officer to do "whatever it takes to keep the Soviets from crossing that bridge!"
This one episode is the tip of the iceberg. I'v heard a great many stories from people who have worked directly for Clark, and the guy is power-crazy and dangerous.
And don't believe the stories about how "smart" he is. Surely you've known someone who gets straight "A's" without hardly trying, yet has no common sense. That's Wes Clark.
Don't believe me? Read his book [Waging Modern War]. Knowing the inside story before reading it really helped me see his character, but there's enough there for anyone to see what a moron Clark truely is.
Here's one example: I've read a great many books by senior officers. What do the good ones always mention? --Their staffs. They realize that they are successful because of how good their staff is, and how they as a leader interface with that staff. How many times does Wesley even mention his staff throughout the book? --NEVER. But he points out how great he is by making important decisions with no help all the time.
1982. Do you remember the USMC Captain who stopped an Israeli tank column with his .45, standing in their way and preventing them from moving up some long forgotten line of advance around Beirut? (He later quit the military over gays or women.) He was kind of kooky perhaps, and THAT time, he got away with it, acting unilaterally.
Imagine if the USA liason with the Russians had been a similar Dudley Do-Or-Die, when Clark had made the call to halt the Russian column. I wonder if the Ivans would have (I hope) just thrown a net over him before they moved out?
Sooner or later, Clark's get a nutty subordinate to carry out an insane plan, and havoc can result.
That's why Clark should NEVER get control of the nuclear football.
***********************************************************
BTW, your post deserves its own thread.
Yes.
After the rapist-traitor was re-elected in 1996, such a thing is not only possible but probable.
As for a separate thread, you're right; and I've made it so.
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.