Tom Kovach
Wesley Clark: political sapper?
Endorsement of Hillary designed to undermine military conservatism
By Tom Kovach
The recent announcement that Wesley Clark (Gen., US Army, Retired) endorsed Hillary Clinton for president comes as no surprise to me. What does surprise me is that it has not already created a firestorm of protest. But, perhaps the announcement came over the weekend in order to preclude such a firestorm. (If so, please allow me to strike the match.)
As I wrote in 2004, when General Clark ran for president, I have nothing against Wesley Clark the man. (I made that clarification after criticism of my column "Wesley Clark: discharge immediately." Three days after publication of that investigative column, Clark suddenly quit the presidential race. He never made the scheduled campaign stop in Nashville that prompted the column.) My criticism of Gen. Wesley Clark is entirely related to his political support of the Clintons, and his use of obfuscation to bolster that support.
It is utterly beyond me how any military member — active, reserve, or retired — could utter even one word in support of Hillary Clinton for any elected office. She is a woman that would say anything to get elected. Back in 1999, three weeks prior to the start of her so-called "listening tour" (read: "stealth campaign, at taxpayer expense"), I had organized the first anti-Hillary rally in New York State. Last year, during my campaign for the 5th Congressional District of Tennessee, I organized the first anti-Hillary rally in this state. I have previously written about her as a "not-so-closet Communist." She has never denounced her husband's remark, "I loathe the military." Like so many of her fellow not-so-closet Communists within our government, Hillary Clinton tends to use the appearance of support for the military (via support for military spending, which is not necessarily the same thing) as a means of gaining votes from true centrists and conservatives. (On the surface, the Loral-Democrat deal might not have appeared to support Hillary, but only her husband. Keep in mind, though, that Hillary became a Senate candidate after the money from the Loral deal had gone into the Democratic coffers. And, keep in mind that long-time Hillary friend Judith Hope had moved from Little Rock to New York in time to become the chairman of the NY Democratic Party shortly before Hillary announced her "listening tour." How many people move from one state to another, and suddenly become chairman of a state political party in their new home state?)
Hillary Clinton having a desk in the Oval Office is a thought that should terrify every American, but especially every member of our military. The fact that a retired general would suggest that she would make a good commander-in-chief borders on treason. I can imagine that the first appointment of a President Hillary Clinton would be that of former President Bill Clinton to be the next American ambassador to the United Nations. In that role, he could then oversee the United States involvement in even more of the type of globetrotting military misadventures that he instigated during his White House tenure. (Consider the long-term effects of America's military propping up a Socialist dictator in Haiti, assisting the Muslims in fighting the Christians in the Balkans, or getting bogged down in the internal politics of Somalia. And, that was when the Republicans controlled the Congress!)
Despite some very admirable qualifications (Ranger, Airborne, etc.) and deeds (rappelling down a cliff to look for survivors of a rocket attack on an ambassador), the fact remains that General Wesley Clark has a history of questionable high-level decisions. After he removed Clark from his position as the supreme commander of NATO, Secretary of Defense William Cohen told CNN, "And I felt that the ax, as such, when it fell spoke for itself." General Clark has also used his position of trust (as a White House Fellow and a professor at West Point during the mid-1970s) to undermine our military strength (by writing a study that enabled President Jimmy Carter to dramatically shrink our military in the late 1970s). As a long-time Rhodes scholar, Clark and his fellow Clintonistas are committed to an agenda of global Socialism. His support of a Socialist like Hillary Clinton is open proof.
Americans that are part of the "Vietnam generation" are all-too-familiar with the strategy of the sapper attack. A person that appears to be one thing (such as the tailor at the BX) uses his position of trust to gain access to a vulnerable area. That person then reveals his status as a double agent by carrying a bomb into that vulnerable area (by, for example, riding his bicycle onto the flight line). Sapper attacks are especially insidious, because of the trust betrayed in order to carry out the attack. In my opinion, General Wesley Clark has used the trust gained during his military career to conduct a political sapper attack. The damage done, if military voters were to act upon his endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president, would be devastating to our nation. Reject both Clark and Clinton.
© Tom Kovach
The recent announcement that Wesley Clark (Gen., US Army, Retired) endorsed Hillary Clinton for president comes as no surprise to me. What does surprise me is that it has not already created a firestorm of protest. But, perhaps the announcement came over the weekend in order to preclude such a firestorm. (If so, please allow me to strike the match.)
As I wrote in 2004, when General Clark ran for president, I have nothing against Wesley Clark the man. (I made that clarification after criticism of my column "Wesley Clark: discharge immediately." Three days after publication of that investigative column, Clark suddenly quit the presidential race. He never made the scheduled campaign stop in Nashville that prompted the column.) My criticism of Gen. Wesley Clark is entirely related to his political support of the Clintons, and his use of obfuscation to bolster that support.
It is utterly beyond me how any military member — active, reserve, or retired — could utter even one word in support of Hillary Clinton for any elected office. She is a woman that would say anything to get elected. Back in 1999, three weeks prior to the start of her so-called "listening tour" (read: "stealth campaign, at taxpayer expense"), I had organized the first anti-Hillary rally in New York State. Last year, during my campaign for the 5th Congressional District of Tennessee, I organized the first anti-Hillary rally in this state. I have previously written about her as a "not-so-closet Communist." She has never denounced her husband's remark, "I loathe the military." Like so many of her fellow not-so-closet Communists within our government, Hillary Clinton tends to use the appearance of support for the military (via support for military spending, which is not necessarily the same thing) as a means of gaining votes from true centrists and conservatives. (On the surface, the Loral-Democrat deal might not have appeared to support Hillary, but only her husband. Keep in mind, though, that Hillary became a Senate candidate after the money from the Loral deal had gone into the Democratic coffers. And, keep in mind that long-time Hillary friend Judith Hope had moved from Little Rock to New York in time to become the chairman of the NY Democratic Party shortly before Hillary announced her "listening tour." How many people move from one state to another, and suddenly become chairman of a state political party in their new home state?)
Hillary Clinton having a desk in the Oval Office is a thought that should terrify every American, but especially every member of our military. The fact that a retired general would suggest that she would make a good commander-in-chief borders on treason. I can imagine that the first appointment of a President Hillary Clinton would be that of former President Bill Clinton to be the next American ambassador to the United Nations. In that role, he could then oversee the United States involvement in even more of the type of globetrotting military misadventures that he instigated during his White House tenure. (Consider the long-term effects of America's military propping up a Socialist dictator in Haiti, assisting the Muslims in fighting the Christians in the Balkans, or getting bogged down in the internal politics of Somalia. And, that was when the Republicans controlled the Congress!)
Despite some very admirable qualifications (Ranger, Airborne, etc.) and deeds (rappelling down a cliff to look for survivors of a rocket attack on an ambassador), the fact remains that General Wesley Clark has a history of questionable high-level decisions. After he removed Clark from his position as the supreme commander of NATO, Secretary of Defense William Cohen told CNN, "And I felt that the ax, as such, when it fell spoke for itself." General Clark has also used his position of trust (as a White House Fellow and a professor at West Point during the mid-1970s) to undermine our military strength (by writing a study that enabled President Jimmy Carter to dramatically shrink our military in the late 1970s). As a long-time Rhodes scholar, Clark and his fellow Clintonistas are committed to an agenda of global Socialism. His support of a Socialist like Hillary Clinton is open proof.
Americans that are part of the "Vietnam generation" are all-too-familiar with the strategy of the sapper attack. A person that appears to be one thing (such as the tailor at the BX) uses his position of trust to gain access to a vulnerable area. That person then reveals his status as a double agent by carrying a bomb into that vulnerable area (by, for example, riding his bicycle onto the flight line). Sapper attacks are especially insidious, because of the trust betrayed in order to carry out the attack. In my opinion, General Wesley Clark has used the trust gained during his military career to conduct a political sapper attack. The damage done, if military voters were to act upon his endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president, would be devastating to our nation. Reject both Clark and Clinton.
© Tom Kovach
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
