Wesley Clark disgraced himself last night in the St. Anselm's College Democratic candidate debate, in Manchester, NH. A close look at his precise statement, in response to Peter Jennings's question about the 'deserter' allegation against President Bush, yields disturbing implications. Jennings noted Michael Moore had called President Bush a 'deserter' in Clark's presence, and the former 4—star general had not called him to task. Clark's immediate response was, 'Well, I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this.'

Really?

Feelings are not a basis for making factual assertions. Feelings cannot prove truth or falsify contentions. Nobody has the right to make libelous contra—factual statements, simply based on feelings. I may 'feel' so—and—so is a pedophile, but if I publicly accuse him of being one, I will likely face a court appearance, and a large judgement against me for exercising the 'right' Wesley Clark says that I have.

I find it rather alarming that a candidate for President regards feelings as a valid justification for action. If President Bush 'felt' that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs, would Clark stop criticizing the war with Iraq? He has taken the position that Bush had a right to accuse Saddam, based on no factual evidence, only his feelings.

Would President Clark be justified in launching a nuclear attack, based on his feelings, rather than on facts?

It gets worse. Clark goes on to say that he's seen the charge of desertion 'bandied about,' but decided it 'wasn't material.'

Really?

A career military officer who reached the highest levels believes that desertion is an immaterial factor in a leader's background? Surely, ex—General Clark must have been familiar with the gravity assigned to desertion by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That he would claim that desertion is 'immaterial' to a President's qualifications for office boggles the mind.

Of course, Clark doesn't believe what he said. He was merely coming up with verbiage to cover his behavior. It is becoming evident that expediency is the guiding principle of his campaign. It wasn't expedient to challenge Moore, who had just endorsed him. Clark knows that any 'desertion' by a young George W. Bush would have been dealt with harshly by the military justice system. The interests of the moment dictated that he simply ignore an outrageous slander.

Bill Clinton could get away with expediency, because he brought a lawyer's mind to constructing his cover verbiage. Wesley Clark lacks this level of skill. Mendacity absent verbal facility is a losing combination. Clark's candidacy is doomed.

Posted by Thomas   01 23 04