Picking up where we left off-- in the jam packed 2nd story classroom at UCLA Public Affairs Bldg- Wes had just finished telling his slipping on the icy runway story from his own Presidential campaign of 2004. He recounted how the photographer had caught him, sure enough, at just the worst moment. The whole room cracked up with his physical reenactment of the slide, then settled down for the next sobering question from a young man who asks;

Q: What’s your opinion of John McCain’s foreign policy?

Without missing a beat – Wes immediately launches into singing:

“Bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran—“

And the room was once again a-flutter in giggles. The General knows how to drop the laugh lines in to break the ice…

John’s going to have a lot of problems in the general election. I like John McCain. He’s a personal friend; he’s been over the house…. Well he’d probably not consider me a personal friend now because I’m a Democrat… But when I was a General he considered me a personal friend. I like him, but – um…. he’s mostly been wrong.

(and they’re off and giggling again—Wes should work the Comedy Store!)

He was wrong on enforcing the invasion of Iraq. He was wrong on insisting that it’s a military problem. He was wrong on believing the surge would solve the problem. He’s just not a…. Look, the Republican Party, parts of it, they’re weighted down on conviction. And they’re light on pragmatism. The Democratic Party is weighted down on pragmatism and it’s light on conviction. And this is the asymmetry of American politics. Democrats have a hard time telling you what they believe actually…They tell you what they want to do. Whereas if you go to the Republicans—all they can tell you about is what they believe! […]

It’s the difference in the two parties. One party is excessively value oriented. The other party has a values deficit. It just doesn’t speak in terms of convictions.

George Bush wouldn’t let a guy go until you twisted his arm, and held his wrist up behind his neck, and he thought you were gonna break his arm. Finally-- he let Al Gonzales go. Bill Clinton was throwing ‘em overboard right and left! Loyalty’s a big thing in one party - loyalty’s not a big thing in the other. The idea is: Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line. And they’ll fall in line behind McCain’s foreign policy. It’s the asymmetry - McCain’s all conviction, but he’s not much pragmatism.

I’m not saying Democrats don’t have convictions. It’s just when they speak… Democrats tend to speak programmatically about what they want done, in a way that’s different than the way Republicans address their audiences.

Veep, Veep, Who’s the Veep?

Q: Um, who do you think are the most likely candidates for Hillary Clinton’s Vice President? (The room erupts in laughter)

Oh… I think that Senator Evan Bayh from Indiana is a strong contender…

(the man in front me turns around just as I inadvertently wrinkle my nose in protest… I may have booed under my breath as well)

I think the Governor of Ohio is a strong contender…
I think the Governor of Iowa is a strong contender…

And then there was this thick, long pause where he just kind of grinned and looked down—and the chuckling broke out again! Then was interrupted by the questioner asking Wes:

Q: Any chance of an Obama and Clinton? (another girl pipes up “Yeah!”)

Wes’s voice suddenly jumps an octave as he squeaks out an attempt at enthusiasm:

“Yeah.”

(But from my seat… it had to be one of the least convincing ‘Yeah’s I have ever heard... heh )

Q:(same girl) --How likely?

Then, with a mischievous grin, Wes shot right back:

Two percent! ;-)

And guess what happened next? The room burst into another group guffaw

One of the things I like about Hillary is I think she’s got very, very strong values, and very strong convictions. She knows who she is. She knows what she stands for. She doesn’t waver, she’s very tough-minded. And I think she’ll be a very strong President… if she’s put in there.

And there’ll be no doubt… who the Commander in Chief is.

Thank you General Clark for that perfect set up. I’d had my question ready and Wes just provided me with the perfect tagline to follow up! It was too good an opportunity to miss – so I’m flapping my arms wildly about back and forth, back and forth in the air, making breeze just to catch his eye-- and it worked! Wes spots the manic flailing arm and:.

Over here… Oh Hi!

MS: Hi!! Actually this segueways from what you just said… as far as a Commander in Chief… We’re all going to vote for a President, but we’re also voting for a Commander in Chief and, from your point of view, could you enlighten us as to the specifications of this time- as opposed to other elections - what it is we need to look for in a Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces? I mean, specifically now?

(And yes, that is just how badly I worded that question. Grammar Snob would have fainted.)

WES: (serious tone here) Well you’re gonna have to have somebody who first of all is willing to do the homework and [understand] the missions. Secondly, someone who has a real sympathetic view for the troops and their families. And third, someone who’s willing to make tough decisions. Someone told me-- you can’t vote ‘present’ when you’re Commander in Chief... But of course… you can. You can…. It’s just a question of… you don’t want to fight every battle. You want to pick and choose your fights.

I think you’d like to have someone who’s got a lot of familiarity with issues and knows the process of being in the White House. That’s the reason why I’ve endorsed Hillary, because I think she’s the one with the greatest familiarity with the issues and the process.

If you look at the records of past Presidents and go back, for example, to Kennedy- you’ll see that most Presidents stumble and fail on foreign policy. And they do it immediately.

Presidential Stumbles

Wes: John Kennedy bumped into Nikita Khrushchev in a kitchen of a hotel in Vienna and we almost started World War III when Khrushchev believed that Kennedy was an immature and weak willed, vacillating capitalist. And that led to the Berlin crisis and the mobilization of the Armed Forces… That was after the Bay of Pigs fiasco

.

____________________________________________________________________

President Carter with Leonid Brezhnev, 1979

Carter had some previous experience with the Navy – but that wasn’t exactly like having been there in high level positions and senior briefings and so forth. And his reforms to the intelligence community-- they’re certainly questionable. And that caused a lot of concern over a long period of time. I say that despite my high regard for the President and for his CIA Director, Stan Turner... But, when you downplay human intelligence and you believe you don’t need people behind the lines, who put their eyes on it-- you just don’t understand the process of statecraft. Or the process of intelligence

.

____________________________________________________________________

Reagan- he almost had a revolt on his hands when he went to Reykjavic to talk to Gorbachev. In fact, the three star General who accompanied him, he lost his career over it. He was basically headed on to great things until he accompanied Reagan to Reykjavic, and they found out that Reagan had offered a complete surrender of nuclear disarmament to Gorbachev. And it was shocking, outrageous, and Reagan was out of control at the time… I guess you could say it worked out okay. It was a case where… there was luck

.

____________________________________________________________________

George [HW] Bush knew foreign policy, he’d been there as Vice President before- he’d seen it. And yet he still missed an incredible opportunity of really structuring help for Russia, for the Soviet Union, in a way that maybe we could have prevented some of the blowback we’re afflicted with now

.

____________________________________________________________________

And Bill Clinton- Well if you look at what happened with Bosnia, what happened with Somalia, and what happened with Haiti in the first 12 months of his administration it was clear that all the intelligence and smarts in the world couldn’t keep him out of trouble. As he would be the first to tell you: When you’re the President of the United States, you’ve got to have a very well crafted BS Detector.(!)

And unless you’ve been there-- you don’t know it.

When you first get in there and people tell you, “Sir don’t worry about this thing, we’ve got this thing covered, blah blah blah”--- You don’t know whether to believe them or not. And they’re … wearing uniforms… and they’re high ranking diplomats, they’ve done all their work and they sound… impeccable. And they don’t know what they’re talking about. And they’re wrong.

And so this is the kind of experience…What you want is someone to come into that office that has the appropriate degree of skepticism, the refined BS detector, knows the issues, can make the decisions…. And I think there’s one person who’s more qualified than the rest in that regard.

UCLA Professor & moderator- Al Toy pretty much summed it up for us all at the end:

...Most students and faculty at universities don’t have an opportunity to interact very much with high ranking military, retired or active … And they have many pre-formed views, very few of which are as positive—as extraordinarily positive—as they will have when they walk out these doors today.