Reply #84: On Clark and the Republican Team

[Tom Rinaldo]

When Clark appeared at the Republican Fund raiser in 2001
he was not a politician ,repeat was not a politician. It is true that Clark was never highly partisan throughout his career (you can consider that as an asset or a debit to his canidacy now, depends on how you view and use it). Because he functioned at the upper levels of the military, he literally had both Democrats and Republicans as "his boss"; Presidents of both parties, and bipartisan Congressional committees. Clark is a Constitutional scholar, he frequently cites the Federalist papers in speeches. George Washington is a personal hero of Clark's, partially because he resigned his command of the American Army and established the precedent of civilian control of the military. Throughout his career Clark swore allegience to the Commander and Chief regardless of party.

This by itself does not explain Clark's appearing early in 2001 at a Bush fund raiser, but if you want to be fair, it is an essential starting point for understanding Clark's behavior at that time. So, point number one. Clark did not at that time envision entering partisan politics. He was not "breaking ranks" with his political party. Clark was a private citizen registered as an Independent (as are the majority of voters in Arkansaw) who had voted for Gore and Clinton over the prior 12 years, but previously had supported Republicans.

Clark had previously personally worked with a number of the men who newly President George W. Bush had recently appointed to his national security team, including Dick Cheney who Clark worked with when the Army had assigned him to interface with the White House during the Ford Presidency. Clark directly served under Colin Powell (who you might remember Clinton tapped as a personal envoy to negotiate with the hunta in Haiti after Aristad was ousted). Although Clark had voted for Clinton and Gore, he was not a strong partisan then, as that state of mind was counter productive to the mission he was pledged to uphold in the military. It is obvious from his service that Clark always cared deeply about his country. Upon retiring from the military Clark was a private citizen, but not a typical private citizen. As a retired 4 Star General, Clark had access to the ears of decision makers, some of whom in the new Bush White House Clark knew personally.

In the area of national security few at that time (1999-2001)really expected (I said few, not none) the Bush administration to be so ideologically driven and extremist. Most Democrats were far more concerned about Bush's domestic rather than his foreign policy. People had high hope for Colin Powell as a moderating force as Secretary of State. Most expected Bush the son to be more or less like Bush the elder in foreign policy, the Senior Bush you will remember did go completely through the United Nations in his own dealings with Iraq for example. I believe Clark supported Gore because of Domestic issues, but thought at the time of the fund raiser that the Republican administration could be more or less trusted in foreign affairs.

Thus I see his early appearance at a Bush fund raiser to be first a tip of his hat to former colleagues, but more important, a tactical move to preserve his personal influence to effect policies in the White House, much as he had throughout his career with both Democratic and Republican Presidents. I can understand all of that, since Clark had not yet entered the partisan world of politics, he was using the means easily at hand to ensure that his thoughts and concerns remained heard in the highest circles, and Clark had concerns.

Clark lost faith in the national security policy of the Bush administration fairly soon afterwoods. His increasing doubts and critism are well documented. As a man without a solid base in either political party, it was a difficult decision for him to abandon the inner circle approach to effecting policy in favor of entering the partisan realm where he would start out as a voice in the wilderness with little platform to be heard from. I respect Clark for making that difficult decision. I see it as evidence of the depth of his concerns about the future of our nation and the wrong direction ist is headed in.

I listen to Clark now (I've seen him speak in person twice) and I have absolutely no doubt that he fully understands the danger the current policies of the Bush Presidency has placed our nation in. I have no doubt that he is passionately committed to ending that threat. That's what I care about. I think a broad range of Americans will be able to identify wilh General Clark as a true American patriot and not a shrill political partisan. I think that adds credibility to his opposition to Bush's policies and will help him win broad voter support in the 2004 election. I am not concerned about the Republicans using Clark footage saying good things about the Bush team against him, not in the slightest.

First, it will be old news by then. Second, it will become old news quickly even to those who did not know about it sooner. It is easily turned around. Clark can say he was proud to serve under a number of Presidents of both parties who forged a non partisan US foreign policy based on our traditional strong alliances, and adherence to generally recognized principles of international law. He voted for Gore for his domestic policies but fully expected Bush to maintain the approach to International affairs that had strong bipartisan support, the same as did the overwhelming majority of Americans surveyed at the time, including most who had voted for Gore. Clark (and any Democrat really) can show footage of Bush in the 2000 Presidential debates where Bush went on and on about the United States needing to be humble in our approach to other nations. Clark can (and has) say "I supported the President when he went after the true terrorists in Afghanistan, we all did. It was the right thing to do then, but he didn't finish the job."

He can say the President had the backing of the American people after 9/11, Bush had the backing of the International community, and he squandered all of it away. It is a trajedy and it is true. Bush went ahead with a misquided policy of preemptive war and the "axis of Evil" to the point where he has endangered our security. It is an opening to discussing the disaster of Bush's subsequent foreign policy and the dashing of high hopes once held by many for him.