Montreal man linked to Clark controversy - Presidential candidate claims pressure

The Star ^ | 9/18/03

[Winfield]

Just what we need.....another liar from Arkansas for President!!! Can't you Razorbacks down there start putting
the kabosch on these guys....before they disgrace your state again? Just as you were starting to look smart to the rest of the U.S., by going for Bush over Gore in the last election,.......along comes lying Clark and his big rally
in Little Rock. Puleeez! Head him off before he gets to Washington!

[Domestic Church]

So the Vampire of Clinton called Clark and gave him a loaded key and now the key has been turned.

[Domestic Church]

This is just a chess move.

[Peach]

Dog - see my post to you previously. Also, I'll be Clark did get a phone call that day - from a person he ASSOCIATES with the White House - Clinton!

But he'd misspoken on the Russert show and his narcissism got in the way of correcting it and he let it stand until it fell apart and he told another whopper, etc.

But anyway, I'll bet Clinton called him on 9/11 as he watched his legacy go down in flames. Who else was going to call Clark on 9/11 and apply any kind of pressure in any way! A former administration!

And Clinton would WANT him to link it to Iraq because Clinton could say he passed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998 but Congress lacked the will to carry it to boots on the gruond and thus it's all the Republican's fault! Betcha.

[Domestic Church]

"Anyways, I'm just a patsy for the Clintons, but I enjoy being used and abused."

Yep, a political prostitute.

[Howlin]

I'm in Raleigh, over 100 miles away!

[BlessedByLiberty]

I think the blur is for media types to give Clark the excuse that in the confusion surrounding 9/11 no one could be expected to remember every little detail, now could they?

The problem with this entire Clark preposition is that few people have forgotten anything, including telephone calls of that day, not matter the importance. It is one of those days in our shared natinal experience that will remain in our minds in crystaline detail.

[Domestic Church]

"So please explain how it is possible that Clark "felt pressure from the White House."

Maybe he's living in the past. Denial runs deep in some especially if the $$$ is good.

[William McKinley]

"Peach has assured all of us that Clark has claimed specifically that he received a call from the White House on 9/11"

That is really strange, because this very article says the same thing- that Clark has claimed specifically that he received a call from the White House on 9/11:

"Clark told the widely watched NBC show Meet the Press June 15 that the pressure to make the link "came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over.

"I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, `You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.'"

And as this article makes clear, Peach wasn't the one lying when she said Clark said this. Clark said this. The article here makes clear Clark was lying when he said this. He did not get a call on 9/11. The call did not come from the White House. And the caller did not pressure him to say anything.

He lied through his teeth.

Yet you seem to want very badly to deny that. Why is that?

And for completeness, here is the entire exchange with Russert:

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence." ---

[potlatch]

I watched Clark on CNN late on many evenings during the war because they had caption and Fox didn't. I couldn't stand Clark, because he was a 'spinner' and conniver, just like Clinton and Carville!

[BlessedByLiberty]

not matter = no matter
natinal = national

Adjusting to new glasses, sorry everyone!

[Peach]

See my #144 and tell me what you think about who may have REALLY called Clark that day and why.

[Peach]

Thanks! We can lead them to water, but we can't make them drink.

[Mo1]

Clinton. That's who made the phone call! And that's why Clark said the White House

I'll believe he got a call from Clinton that day

But when he reported that he recieved a call from the WH .. I knew right away it was a lie

The WH and most of DC was being evactuated that day due to threats of more attacks

Then there is the fact, I see no reason why this WH would even think of calling Clark

Of all the people to call .. Clark would be a last thought .. if that

[MizSterious]

MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House.

I just thought I'd emphasize what G.O. has apparently missed, and continues to miss, in the finest DU fashion.

[billhilly]

I have just received an awesome photo of the hurricane, apparantly taken from a ship. I would like to post it, but don't know how. It is spectacular, and I have saved it as a jpg.

Any thoughts?

[BlessedByLiberty]

I think you have hit this nail squarely on his Weasly pointed head! Of course to him equating Clinton and the White House would be second nature.

I also agree that the idea behind the call is that Clinton saw his legacy in literal flames. He was no longer in a position to cover-up his and his pseudo-wife's failures to cope with real terrorism.

Too bad we won't see the media ask Clark this question: Did Clinton (either one) call you on 9/11 and ask you to say it was state sponsored terrorism?

[Peach]

OMG. This is quite bizarre.

[Peach]

Thanks, but I've been doing it with transcripts to Russert's show - to no avail.

Appreciate the help though!