The end of Clark's honeymoon
September 30, 2003

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark has been leading the Democratic presidential field now for nearly two weeks. He's survived his first debate and must be feeling pretty good about things. Pundits are hailing him as just what the Democrats need to counter the image of President Bush as commander-in-chief at a time of continuing national crisis, and the other contenders must be wondering when the media guns will turn on the new entrant.

In last week's debate, the general survived not so much as a result of his fast footwork, but because the other leading contenders are still focused on Howard Dean and actually seem quietly willing to welcome the general to the race so long as he can be used to take the former Vermont governor down a peg or two.

The problem with celebrity candidates is that the day they enter the race is often their best day. They typically run into problems once they have to stand up and handle the questions a serious contender for the presidency is forced to field and they discover that answers that were perfectly acceptable on Monday simply won't wash on Tuesday.

Clark may enjoy an extended honeymoon, but it will inevitably end. And, when it does, the man can expect to have to answer for some real doozies.

There already has been a little attention focused on his firing by the Clinton administration and a few questions about his conduct during the Kosovo struggle before the firing. But there is more to come.

Clark has declared his support for a "new patriotism" and the creation of an America in which people needn't fear speaking out regardless of their views. Some civil libertarians hearing the man might be forgiven for marveling at the very idea of a career military man running on issues near and dear to their hearts. Sounds great, but it is political balderdash.

General Wesley Clark is no more a civil libertarian than Retired Rear Adm. John Poindexter. The only difference between the two, in fact, may be that Poindexter is far more honest in his dismissal of civil libertarian concerns.

It was Poindexter who until recently headed up the Pentagon's "Total Information Awareness Program" that was tasked with figuring out how to compile electronic dossiers on just about everyone in the country and devise ways of analyzing them to find out which of us might warrant closer scrutiny as part of the war on terror. The Congress tried to slow down the program and the Pentagon responded not by reforming it or limiting it, but by renaming it and hinting that anyone who suggested it went too far is, well, "soft" on terrorism.

The program was so "over the top" that even Attorney General John Ashcroft's boys were quick to assure Congress that they had nothing to do with it. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and others quickly determined that these disclaimers were a bit disingenuous, but they underscored Justice's concern that Poindexter and his minions might be going a bit far in their zeal to develop and deploy systems that would allow them to keep on eye on all of us all the time.

It turns out that Clark was a quiet and well-compensated early supporter of Poindexter's scheme. It was the Clark who brought the Pentagon a company called Acxiom that is based in Little Rock and is in the business of collecting and managing data on you and me. The general, it seems, serves on Acxiom's board and was eager for the company be hired to do its thing for the Pentagon. It was and it was Acxiom that recently made the news when it was discovered that officials at JetBlue Airways, in violation of their own privacy policies, had turned over personal information on millions of its passengers to the company for inclusion in the work it is doing for the Pentagon.

This data was apparently being used to develop software that could be transferred to the Department of Homeland Security and deployed as part of the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II) system being developed to screen airline passengers. JetBlue has withdrawn from the program and apologized to its passengers, but concern about the program itself continues.

Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) already has raised a few questions about the general's role in all this and the press will at some point follow suit. When that happens, Clark may have to come up with a new vision more in keeping with his apparent desire make sure that free men and women are not allowed to say or do much that escapes the notice of an all powerful government.