Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

William Safire: Why have the Clintons anointed Wesley Clark?
IHT Online ^ | September 23, 2003 | William Safire

Posted on 09/23/2003 6:09:02 AM PDT by joesnuffy

William Safire: Why have the Clintons anointed Wesley Clark? William Safire NYT Tuesday, September 23, 2003

WASHINGTON The Clintons decided that the Democratic primary campaign was getting out of hand. Howard Dean was getting all the buzz and too much of the passionate left's money. Word was out that Dean as nominee, owing Clintonites nothing, would quickly dump Terry McAuliffe, through whom Bill and Hillary maintain control of the Democratic National Committee.

That's when word was leaked of the former president's observation at an intimate dinner party at the Clinton estate in Chappaqua, New York, that "there are two stars in the Democratic Party - Hillary and Wes Clark."

Meanwhile, the four-star general that Clinton fired for being a publicity hog during the Kosovo liberation has been surrounded by the Clinton-Gore mafia. Lead agent is Mark Fabiani, the impeachment spinmeister; he brought in the rest of the Restoration coterie. When reporters start poking into any defense contracts Clark arranged for clients after his retirement, he will have the lip-zipping services of the Clinton confidant Bruce Lindsey.

As expected, fickle media that had been entranced with Dean (Dr. Lose-the-War) dropped the cranky Vermonter like a cold couch potato and are lionizing Clinton's fellow Arkansan and fellow Rhodes Scholar. He's new, handsome, intellectual, a genuine Silver Star Vietnam hero and taught economics at West Point.

I admired NATO commander Clark's military aggressiveness when the Serbs were slaughtering civilians in Kosovo. He wanted to use Apache helicopter gunships and send in NATO troops, as John McCain urged, but Clinton sided with Pentagon brass fearful of U.S. casualties, and the lengthy air campaign was conducted from 15,000 feet up; thousands of Kosovars died. (Four years later, UN-administered Kosovo is still not sovereign, and Clinton was there last week saying, "I think we belong here until our job is finished.")

As a boot-in-mouth politician, however, Clark ranks with Arnold Schwarzenegger. He began by claiming to have been pressured to stop his defeatist wartime CNN commentary by someone "around the White House"; challenged, he morphed that source into a Canadian Middle East think tank, equally fuzzy.

Worse, as his Clinton handlers cringed, he blew his antiwar appeal by telling reporters "I probably would have voted for" the congressional resolution authorizing Bush to invade Iraq. Next day, the chastised candidate flip-flopped, claiming "I never would have voted for war."

Clark's strange explanation: "I've said it both ways, because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position." He put himself in the hot-pretzel position - softly twisted.

Let's assume the Clinton handlers teach him the rudiments of verbal discipline and the Clinton fund-raising machine makes him a viable candidate. To what end? What's in it for the Clintons?

Control. First, control of the Democratic Party machinery, threatened by the sudden emergence of Dean and his antiestablishment troops. Second, control of the Democratic ideological position, making sure it remains on the respectable left of center.

What if, as Christmas nears, the economy should tank and President George W. Bush becomes far more vulnerable? Hillary would have to announce willingness to accept a draft. Otherwise, should the maverick Dean take the nomination and win, Clinton dreams of a Restoration die.

Here is where the politically inexperienced Clark comes in. He is the Clintons' most attractive stalking horse, useful in stopping Dean and diluting support for Kerry, Lieberman or Gephardt. If Bush stumbles and the Democratic nomination becomes highly valuable, the Clintons probably think they would be able to get Clark to step aside without splintering the party, rewarding his loyalty with second place on the ticket.

G'wan, you say, the Clintons should be supporting Dean, a likely loser to Bush, thereby ensuring the Clinton Restoration in 2008. But plainly they are not. Their candidate is Clark. Either they are for him because (altruistic version) they think Clark would best lead the party and country for the next eight years, leaving them applauding on the sidelines, or (Machiavellian version) they think his muddy-the-waters candidacy is their ticket back to the White House in 2004 or 2008.

Which is more like the Clintons?

E-mail: safire@nytimes.com


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; arkansas; brucelindsey; clintongoremafia; clintons; controlofdnc; flipflops; machiavellian; natocommander; stalkinghorse; wesleyclark; williamsafire
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

1 posted on 09/23/2003 6:09:03 AM PDT by joesnuffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy

2 posted on 09/23/2003 6:10:18 AM PDT by LRS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Good to see a decent Safire column. He seems to do a good one about once a year. This is right on the money.
3 posted on 09/23/2003 6:15:11 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LRS
"Ah, but the strawberries! That's -- that's where I had them.
4 posted on 09/23/2003 6:17:53 AM PDT by billorites (freepo ergo sum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Excellent column. If Clark was #1 in his class, its safe to say that there was no bumper crop of graduates that year. He will fade. Even the toe-sucking freak agrees with me.
5 posted on 09/23/2003 6:19:51 AM PDT by StockAyatollah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Bill and Hill just can't lose control. But will Hill run in '04 or '08? Who's betting?
6 posted on 09/23/2003 6:20:01 AM PDT by sarasota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LRS
Precious bodily fluids...


7 posted on 09/23/2003 6:21:11 AM PDT by TADSLOS (Right Wing Infidel since 1954)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
The General taught economics - well no wonder the military hasn't been able to keep track of the wares.

This guy has no original thoughts of his own, that clip that shows him calling CNN to see if he could do an interview says it all.

He gets hourly scripts from the Clinton fedayeen.

So what do the Clintons have on this guy to make him play this role?
8 posted on 09/23/2003 6:22:00 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LRS
Sterling Hayden at least had charisma.
9 posted on 09/23/2003 6:24:09 AM PDT by SBprone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: StockAyatollah
That "Chaplain Yee" from Guantanamo was also probably high in HIS class at West Point...
10 posted on 09/23/2003 6:29:03 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TADSLOS
YES!


It finally hit me yesterday just whom it was Gen Clark reminded me of: Gen. Jack D. Ripper...
11 posted on 09/23/2003 6:32:59 AM PDT by LRS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SBprone
Sterling Hayden at least had charisma.

True!

12 posted on 09/23/2003 6:36:21 AM PDT by LRS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LRS
This thread is why I love FR. You guys crack me up.
13 posted on 09/23/2003 6:48:45 AM PDT by WilliamWallace1999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TADSLOS
sapped and impurified.
14 posted on 09/23/2003 6:48:54 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sarasota
I'm betting '08. They are planning to have the dems lose in '04. If they lose in a landslide, the hildebeast will work to enrage the already frenzied left into thinking she is their last and only hope. If it's a close election, she'll work to foster the idea that it was another stolen election, again setting herself up as savior of the party.

Nothing is left to chance, as her public-outings-by-invitation-only show. Clark has been thrown in as an attempt to make sure the dems splinter and lose.
15 posted on 09/23/2003 7:03:34 AM PDT by kenth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
If Dean gets the nomination and makes a respectable showing in the general election (even losing) it will de-Clintonize the Democratic Party.
16 posted on 09/23/2003 7:19:03 AM PDT by Salman (Mickey Akbar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salman
What's a respectable showing ? 30 percent ?
17 posted on 09/23/2003 7:44:31 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
I love the smell of 1968 in the morning. If Clinton pushes Hillary or Clark into the nomination, over the dead body of Dean, will be like Humphrey over McCarthy. The butcher of Kosovo will not win the hearts and minds of the anti-war left.
18 posted on 09/23/2003 7:51:27 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kenth
How does Hillary intend to beat Jeb in '08?
19 posted on 09/23/2003 7:54:15 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: billorites

20 posted on 09/23/2003 7:54:57 AM PDT by Cincinatus (Omnia relinquit servare Republicam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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