Misleadership
Retired General Wesley Clark, we are told endlessly, is running on his record. Never mind that he has no record to speak of on most domestic policy matters. What is really troubling is that, when it comes to his putative area of expertise – national security, Clark seems perfectly prepared to run away from his record, or at least to dissemble about it.
A War-time President?
A prime example is Clark’s position on the war in Iraq. He got into trouble on this score as soon as he announced his candidacy by saying that, had he been in Congress, he would “probably” have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing military action against Saddam Hussein. Within hours, he was denying that was his view and insisting that he opposed the war all along.
In fact, as the race has tightened, Gen. Clark has become in some ways even more strident than Howard Dean, the most vociferous anti-war candidate among the mainstream Democratic presidential hopefuls. Citing his authority as a professional military officer, Clark has made a signature issue of what he regards as George W. Bush’s diversion of firepower and intelligence capabilities from the real war on terror – the pursuit of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda – to the needless overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Along the way, Gen. Clark has also raised questions about President Bush’s integrity, lending weight to charges that the latter deliberately misled the American people about the threat posed by Saddam, the status of his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs and the Iraqi dictator’s actual ties to terror.
The ‘Record’ Speaks for Itself
Unfortunately for General Clark, if voters do judge him on his record, they are likely to be deeply troubled by serious questions it raises about his integrity and conduct.
Such questions were notably prompted by the revelation last week that Gen. Clark gave testimony on the eve of congressional action on the Iraq war resolution that sounded virtually indistinguishable from the views of the Bush Administration. For example, on September 26, 2002, the General told the House Armed Services Committee:
The ‘Scott Ritter Syndrome’
Wes Clark can legitimately contend that he was wrong back in the Fall of 2002 and that his considered opinion is what he says today, when he effectively repudiates his previous positions. What the general cannot do – certainly not while laying a higher claim to integrity than President Bush – is to contend that what he said then and what he is saying now are the same.
Of course, Gen. Clark’s distortion of his views on Iraq are not the only instance in which he has willfully misled the public on a vital national security matter. Arguably, an even more important example occurred on January 8, 2004, when he told the Concord Monitor that: “If I’m President of the United States, I’m going to take care of the American people. We are not going to have one of these incidents [like the 9/11 terrorist attacks].”
No one can make such a promise. And no one who holds himself out as a responsible practitioner of security policy – let alone a trustworthy Commander-in-Chief – would assert, even for a moment, that he could.
The Bottom Line
Wesley Clark is running on a platform that he is uniquely qualified to provide leadership for America. His record to date – and his representations of it – suggests that what he offers instead is misleadership, something we can certainly do without.
- The UN transforms itself into a world government - September 22, 2024
- Hezbollah is engaged in terrorism, not Israel - September 22, 2024
- Israel must seize the day - September 20, 2024