Barbara J. Stock
January 6, 2004
Clark: The uniform does not make the man
By Barbara J. Stock

General Wesley Clark was relieved of command. Many of his fellow generals say it was a matter of "integrity." They won't expand on what they meant except to say he won't get their vote.

General Clark ordered his NATO troops to attack the Russians. The only thing that averted what could have escalated into WWIII was the British Commander refusing to carry out his orders by saying, "I will not start WWIII for you."

Now Wesley Clark claims he could do a better job waging the war on terror than President Bush. But what is General Clark's knowledge of bin Laden and his followers?

January 4th, 2004, General Clark, in an interview with NBC's Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," made this statement, "…they {the Bush Administration} were told that the greatest threat to American security was Osama bin Laden." We have no proof that this is a true statement. The Clinton machine saying it is so, doesn't make it true.

For the sake of argument, let's say what Wesley Clark says is true. When did the Clinton Administration come to this conclusion? The General tells us a little later in the interview. General Clark: "In fact, we did have threats by Osama bin Laden. We were under high alert starting in late summer of '98, all the way through. We were very concerned about this." So General Clark and President Clinton were aware of the threat Osama posed to United States security in 1998? What did they do besides discuss it? History shows nothing but the destruction of an antibiotic factory in the Sudan and a few empty tents in the desert.

Also in 1998, al Qaeda bombed the U.S. embassies in Africa. 224 were killed and 5,000 were injured. If General Clark was a Presidential advisor, as he wants us to believe, discussing the problem of terrorists with the Secretary of Defense and the President, what did he advise him he should do to capture those responsible? Did he remind them that attacking an American Embassy is an act of war? What was his plan? Clark never says.

That same year, bin Laden proclaimed his fatwa against America telling his followers to attack and kill Americans everywhere. We know now, the 9/11 attack plan was underway. What was General Clark's advice to the President on dealing with this menacing and growing threat to Americans?

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, (R-Cal), got an urgent message from a reliable and trusted friend in Afghanistan telling him where bin Laden was staying. The window of opportunity would be short and immediate action was needed if they wished to kill this man whom they considered the biggest threat to America. Rohrabacher contacted the CIA immediately with his information. No action was taken and bin Laden moved on, untouched, to continue his plans that led to 9/11. For an Administration that says they "obsessed" about bin Laden, this missed opportunity is puzzling.

It wasn't until 1999 that Clinton saw fit to add bin Laden and al Qaeda to his list of known terrorist organizations. If bin Laden was being discussed at length as such an immediate threat in the summer of 1998, why did it take so long and so many attacks to put this man and al Qaeda on the terror list? If they were under "high alert" because of bin Laden, why was nothing done to stop him or warn the American people?

The U.S.S. Cole was bombed in 2000. 17 American sailors died. This attack was also an act of war. Though General Clark retired that year, did he express outrage that no punishment was doled out for this unprovoked attack on an American ship? Did he express his concern about the danger bin Laden presented to this country?

As the storm clouds of war gathered over America, Clark claims he saw these ominous clouds as early as 1998. He admits that he saw bin Laden as the biggest threat facing America but did nothing. For over two years, there was no plan, no real effort to remove this threat. Yet, he claims President Bush should have acted in the eight months he was in office prior to 9/11 and taken elaborate steps to stop the attack and remove bin Laden.

General Clark said to Tim Russert "…"on 9/11, there was still no government plan, no plan sanctioned by the president of the United States, no plan directed to go after that threat of Osama bin Laden." "….the top leaders in the government hadn't focused the resources of the United States of America to take action against the greatest threat facing America. And that's the job of the president of the United States, especially when it comes to national security. The buck stops on his desk." What was your plan, General Clark?

In truth, there was a plan, but unlike Bill Clinton and his General, Wesley Clark, President Bush didn't have more than 2 years to take action. The clock , that had been ticking for over two years, ran out.

One statement General Clark said is true. It is the job of the President to protect America's citizens from threats such as bin Laden. The General and President Clinton failed miserably in that respect.

General Clark, who paints himself as an insider to Clinton's concerns about terrorist attacks, shows clearly, that collectively they did nothing to protect the America people.

Now, this man, this General who brought us to the brink of war with Russia, who claims he knew about the danger bin Laden presented yet did nothing now blames the sitting President for not averting an attack he and his President had years to stop.

Over 3000 dead are asking, "Why?"

© Barbara J. Stock

 

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.)

Click to enlarge

Barbara J. Stock

Barbara is a retired Registered Nurse after over 35 years in the field. She is pro-life at both ends of life's journey. Mother of two, Grandmother of two, she is pro-America and anti-progressive. Absent from writing for too long, she is back and determined to make a difference.

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Barbara J. Stock: Click here

Latest articles

 

Alan Keyes
Why de facto government (tyranny) is replacing the Constitution (Apr. 2015)

Stephen Stone
Will Obama be impeached now that Republicans control both houses of Congress? (Nov. 2014)

Alan Keyes
Clinton, Trump both serve their own idols

Cliff Kincaid
Hillary health scare finally becomes news

Larry Klayman
Hillary, BLM and their NFL stooges

J. Matt Barber
Yes, Jesus is your only hope

Bryan Fischer
What did Ham do when he uncovered Noah's nakedness?

Michael Bresciani
Why homo-marriage will bring America into direct conflict with God

Michael Gaynor
Don't underestimate the blowback from Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" putdown

A.J. Castellitto
Gary Johnson and the libertarian myth

Laurie Roth
NFL -- Don't take a knee on America

Cliff Kincaid
Which security risk for president?

Matt C. Abbott
The 'right-to-die' case of Jerika Bolen

Rev. Mark H. Creech
Probing questions on preaching and politics
  More columns

Cartoons


Michael Ramirez
More cartoons

RSS feeds

News:
Columns:

Columnists

Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Russ J. Alan
Bonnie Alba
Jamie Freeze Baird
Chuck Baldwin
Kevin J. Banet
J. Matt Barber
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites