Get over it conservatives, Wesley Clark is seeking the white house, and your fellow rightists have been frantically digging around for fodder that they hope will weaken Clark's popularity and eventually kill his chances at becoming the next president. As I correctly predicted in yesterday's column, Joseph Farah of the highly successfully right-wing WorldNetDaily has begun his assault on Wesley Clark. His column is laughable, desperate, and nothing more than recycled bits from other poorly constructed arguments that have no consistency.
In his column Why Wesley Clark is dangerous, Farah rhetorically asks if Wesley Clark is more dangerous than the other nine democratic presidential nominees. His answer: "Yes, more dangerous than any of these men – because he could win the Democratic nomination and the presidential election in 2004."
Now I generally respect Joseph Farah, at least I used to. He isn't just a left-hater, he's a left-hater and sometimes a right-critic. He hates everyone on the left and he criticizes everyone on the right who doesn't criticize everyone on the left, or anyone who isn't of the Judeo-Christian faith and/or follower of its rules and teachings. He also believes in conspiracy theory. He claims--I mean knows--that former President Clinton was responsible for the death of Vince Foster. He now believes that the nine democratic candidates are supporting Clark by making themselves look inferior.
"It's as if the other nine clowns in the race have simply been setting the stage for the anointed one. I wouldn't be surprised. Clark is a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual tax increaser."
For the religious right, being pro-choice is enough to convict. But American voters who understand that abortion should not be the definitive issue for candidates will need other reasons to turn away from Clark. Most voters don't just see a candidate as pro-choice or pro-life.
On the issue of homosexuality, Gay Wired calls him "moderate" on a gay issues, and mentions that Clark questioned the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, though he has made it clear that he supports gays in the military. Farah has yet to explain why supporting homosexuals in the military is "dangerous."
It's interesting that Farah and other Clark-haters accuse him of being a tax increaser when he's never been in a position where he could increase taxes. As for when/if he becomes president, the independent source Issues 2000 reports that Clark in-fact believes in tax cuts, and never has there been a time when he said he would "raise" them.
Laughably, Farah has adopted the idea that Clark almost started World War III, just because someone in the military said so. "When the Russians took control of Pristina airport before NATO troops, Clark, at the behest of NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana, ordered 500 British and French paratroopers to take it away from them. Thankfully, his order was disregarded by British Gen. Sir Mike Jackson, who told Clark: 'I'm not going to start the Third World War for you.'" It is now accepted by the right that taking control of an airport away from the Russians would have started the third world war. If you ask the families of the slain soldiers who fought in Iraq, they'll tell you that World War III has already been started.
Last year, conservatives would have told you that former Attorney General Janet Reno was responsible for the Waco raid. Ever since Clark entered the 2004 race, conservatives will tell you Clark was responsible for the Waco raid. Clark's crime? He supplied Reno with armor and personnel. "It was Clark, once again, at the center of the Waco massacre. He was in charge at Fort Hood and was only too happy to cooperate with Attorney General Janet Reno in providing the armor and personnel needed for the military-style assault on the Branch Davidian church."
Since when does supplying armor and personnel make you the "center" of a conflict? Notice that Farah said "Cark supplied personnel," while he's trying to insinuate that Clark was the one ordering troops to fire on the Branch Davidian church.
"Clark attended Oxford as a Rhodes scholar with Bill Clinton. But the relationship hardly ended there. It was under Clinton's watch that Clark became a rising star in the military. And once his military career was over, he found a home working for the Stephens Group in Arkansas – the same business incubator that fostered the Clintons' rise to power." So Clark is dangerous because he worked for a business firm in Arkansas?
"It (Clark-Clinton ticket) could happen. We could find our nation back where it was between 1992 and 2000. I have a feeling, because of his utter ruthlessness and predisposition to kill innocent civilians in Serbia and Kosovo, that Clark is potentially even more dangerous than Clinton."
Where was our nation between 1992 and 2000? My answer is economic prosperity; my answer is--surplus. Farah doesn't give us an answer in the column. But he is always making his position on the war very clear. Farah is one of the biggest supporters of the ongoing war in Iraq, so for him to say that Clark has a "predisposition to kill innocent civilians" is ridiculous and entirely hypocritical.
"It's time to sound the alarm – to alert your friends, your neighbors and your co-workers to the real Wesley Clark."
But that might only help Wesley Clark become more popular. Personally, I have yet to pick a candidate to endorse; I have yet to decide if I'm going to vote for Bush, and I won't decide until the polls open. But I am entertained by what is unfolding. Conservatives are freaking out because Clark doesn't have a political background, thus there is nothing to make him look bad.
If this was the 2000 election, conservatives might have a point. But Bush's current war in Iraq makes any attack on Wesley Clark because of his military career, invalid. Clark has entered the race late, and he has a lot of ground to makeup. But by the looks at their current attempts, the conservatives won't be making it any harder on him.