Montreal man linked to Clark controversy - Presidential candidate claims pressure

The Star ^ | 9/18/03

[Peach]

We have a couple of relative newbies who have an agenda - it's a "let's pretend Clark didn't really lie on national television repeatedly" agenda.

They're flunking Basic Spin 101 but next time they come around, they'll have improved their game.

[finnman69]

http://www.polipundit.blogspot.com/

Thursday, September 18, 2003
Clark's Imaginary "Friend"

You know those kooky claims Wesley Clark made about the White House pressuring him to link 9/11 and Iraq? Clark claimed he got a phone call from the White House on 9/11/01 asking him to do so. He later had to retract the claim and was last heard babbling about a "friend" at a "Middle East think tank." Well, that "friend" has decided to go public:
As Clark kicked off his campaign yesterday in Little Rock, Ark., Thomas Hecht, founder of the Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies, told the Star he placed the call to Clark and drew his attention to a potential link between Saddam and the Al Qaeda suicide hijackers.

But Hecht said he did not pressure the former army general, who became a CNN commentator after retiring from the military, to make the link and said the matter was raised in a phone call inviting Clark to come to Montreal for a speech.

...

The Begin-Sadat Centre has its headquarters in Israel and its only office elsewhere is the one Hecht established in Montreal.

...

Hecht said he called Clark either Sept. 12 or Sept. 13 — not the morning of the attacks, as the former general said — but he merely passed on information he had received from Israel which drew a purported link.

...

"I don't know why I would be confused with the White House. I don't even have white paint on my house," he added. "I saw those comments he made and I just chuckled."
That didn't bother Clark, of course, who was too busy lying on national TV in order to score cheap political points. And Clark still hasn't retracted his claim that, in February there were "rumors" that the White House was trying to get him kicked off CNN.
posted by PoliPundit at 12:40 PM Link to this post

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

We are dealing with a DU'er, I'm quite sure, although a review of his In Forum posts looks quite conservative.

DU'er aren't that clever or restrained. And they're always revealed almost instantly by the unmistakable stench of bile that accompanies their every word.

This appears to be the work of a professional.

[Peach]

You have freepmail.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

some folks liked him, some didn't. Yet you claim everyone hated him. Sorry, I just can't take you seriously.

Quote the part of the post that says "everybody hated him".

[hermes509]

Mr Frenchname? Better check your etymology there if you are interested in getting your facts straight, which it appears you aren't. And the reason I say that is your post is exactly eight minutes after mine. How did you manage to read that entire post, check the broadcast of Meet The Press and Hannity & Colmes, and then write back to me in that short of a time period? Is the Free Republic date/time stamp lying? Sorry, I can just picture you saying that for some reason.

You don't like my message so you attack the messenger. I guess you just don't know who to trust anymore. It must be nice to live in a world where you are always correct and anyone who threatens your reality must be up to no good. How do I know you aren't some DUer just trying to make us conservatives look like a bunch of idiots by making claims that are clearly disproved by the actual broadcasts? The irony of it is amazing!

Here you are bashing the guy for being a liar or not knowing what he is talking about with such certainty and you aren't even concerned that there are real broadcasts out there on tape with Clark and Hannity and Tim Russert that don't support what you are saying. Who cares about the messenger when the message is clear! Go make yourself useful and review the shows or their transcripts and get me some real facts that actually support these claims. I would do it myself, but you see that's what I was asking about on the last post and no one could really help me out there either. So if you can great. You can keep everyone else here from looking like idiots who just go spouting off without doing any research.

And if you just want to go after me again then don't bother responding because it just gives ammo to all the liberals out there who are going to say - "hey look the conservatives are dodging the facts again and resorting to ad hominen attacks". And such a response will not reflect very highly on your dedication to truth or helping out with this debate.

Enjoy your petty ad hominen festival and if anyone can point me to a board where I can get some actual facts to counter the arguments that I presented I would appreciate it.

[BigM]

Hecht was the blood broker who bought a lot (millions$)of Arkansas prison blood back in the 1980's at the height of the AIDS crisis. Shipped it around the world and estimates range upto 75000 people infected around the world. The Governor at the time...Bubba no less. Now Hecht is being investigated by the RCMP for this activity.

bump and a drip!

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Clearly, Clark is Hillary's stalking horse. Most speculation (mine amongst it), has been that he will eventually end up as the Veep on a ticket headed by Hillary.

2004 is too iffy for Hill. She'll toy with the idea of running -- and if Bush's poll numbers sag enough, she will -- but mostly she's laying the ground work for 2008. Clark will be the Veep on a ticket headed by Al Gore, thus closing the security gap.

Of course, nothing on this ticket solves the personality gap, but we'll keep that to ourselves.

[arasina]

Oh, excuse me. I meant Mr. FrenchSCARFname. While I do appreciate the time you spent berating petty little me, it seems you were so wrapped up in writing that you forgot to answer my question. Who is the WE?

By the way, I read the original post, and all of the 200+ replies. I posted a couple of responses to others and then refreshed the page and saw your post and asked the question. It's not so unusual.

It's apparent you're not really interested in a board where you can get some actual facts. The facts were presented several times over.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Here you are bashing the guy for being a liar or not knowing what he is talking about with such certainty and you aren't even concerned that there are real broadcasts out there on tape with Clark and Hannity and Tim Russert that don't support what you are saying.

GEN. 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.”

You were saying?

[AHerald]

You really ought to read what I wrote.If you read the transcript, he didn't tell Hannity that the call came from the White House

No. You really ought to think about what you write. The inference and implication left by Clark is clear. There's too much Clintonian parsing and misdirection--from you and Clark. It's the meaning of is type stuff.

What you're defending and nitpicking with fetishistic zeal is called a willful omission. There's no distinction between that and a lie, except to lawyers and every kid who gets caught telling a lie to their parents.

Yes, Clark didn't tell Hannity directly that he received a call from the White House. Duh. So what? I didn't claim he did. The point is that it's clear what Hannity was questioning Clark about. Clark had an opportunity to make the record perfectly clear (especially given that his previous MTP remarks were widely reported, or misreported in Clark's view) and yet he willfully chose not to do so, even when it was obvious from the interviewer's reaction what inference was being drawn. Unless you want to claim that Clark is always a confused dunderhead who's unable to comprehend the proper context in which questions are asked of him when he appears on TV, your arguments are silly and don't pass the laugh test.

I never disputed that Clark claimed the White House tried to tie 9/11 to Iraq... Quite simply, Clark never claimed he was called by the White House on 9/11, but for some reason, some less than honest individuals, led by liberals, have tried to spin it that way.

And in the end this is what it comes down to: You've invested a remarkable amount of time and effort defending tooth and nail a man who, by your own admission, made one wildly outrageous, unproven claim about the White House against charges that he may have made some other wildly outrageous claim... So much effort for such a small distinction.

[AHerald]

We've already covered this Weekly Standard article almost a month ago. It was useless then and its useless now.

Who's "we," kimosabe? I checked that thread you posted and it was pretty much you and one other NewFreeperWhoSuddenly AppearsAndClaimstoBeConservativeDefenderOfWesleyClark defender found the article "useless." Pretty pathetic when you start pointing to your own posts as evidence of how "we've" already covered an issue.

PS At least GoOrdnance makes a good go at posing as just another regular joe freeper. You, on the other hand, are about as transparent as Sharon Stone's panties.

[hermes509]

"We" refers to the members of this community. I guess the word was too general for those who see conspiracy everywhere.

And now that your distracting question is answered one has to ask themselves why does it matter? So pretend I'm the head of the DU because you probably do anyway. Get back to the message, not the messenger. Focus on the issue, not the person bringing it up.

By the way, the original post that I was referring to only has about 40 replies at this point in time. Where do you get 200+? Did you follow the hyperlink to the other Free Republic discussion that I posted here? Maybe that is the source of your confusion as to where I stand.

Yeah facts were certainly presented in the form of actual quotes. The Weekly Standard article was supposed to be fact. But when I was forced to dig deeper I realized all these facts were taken out of context. Its like reading the Bible and saying the whole thing is violent and horrible because of one chapter out of the book of Joshua.

And you still aren't addressing the issues. Its still all about me and distracting questions. Don't worry I will soon be gone as I cannot get what I need here and I grow tired of wasting my time completely off of the issue at hand, which is whether this guy essentially contradicted himself or not.

[hermes509]

I was saying listen to the entire interview. The quote you provide is completely and totally out of context.

Here is what you have done with your quote

You chopped out this

GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, 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.

To which Russert responds with this question

MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?

To which Clark replies

GEN. 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. And these were people who had--Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn't talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection.

The part in bold is the only part you included in your last post and it sure does make it look like the call was from the White House. But he also talks about a Middle East think tank (why did you cut that?) and he seems to be referring back to the call when he says "And these were people".

I can tell people really want to read into this so I can see how it is convenient to take the call and place it on the White House and then come back and say hey he contradicted himself with this letter to the NYT. Most swing voters and moderates that we need to convince aren't going to buy that a guy who graduated first in his class from West Point is stupid enough to write such a letter when this transcript is easily available. Oh, yeah, I forgot he cheated in West Point and that is how he came out first. It has nothing to do with intelligence. Or that is at least the defense I would expect to hear coming from the tone laid out here. Sorry, but ad hominen attacks are just lame, especially when the ad hominen attack is about a person's honesty and consistency and we can't even determine what consistency is ourselves.

Twist it all you want, but just realize that you are leaving yourself open to liberals. So instead of attacking me why don't you figure out where he really contradicted himself (with context) so we can use it.

[hermes509]

Who's "we," kimosabe?

"We" refers to the members of this community. In this particular case, the ones who posted the Weekly Standard article last month. I didn't realize "we" could be twisted in the way you seem to be trying to twist it. Next time I will try to be more specific realizing that I'm either dealing with some liberals who are trying to sabotage my efforts to get at the truth or just some plain old crazy paranoids.

Those who read my old post without paranoia will see I was looking for a little guidance, didn't get it then and now all the sudden I'm the bad guy. Was the word "useless" too strong? Well, sorry it’s the truth. I guess its fine for generating a little excitement here where the word "We" becomes a Clark defending conspiracy.

Excuse me if I have to deal with people who pick up on these things and just laugh their asses off at how stupid conservatives are and how they twist things out of context and a whole bunch of other slanders. But, maybe they just are talking about people like you because I'm trying to get some facts and a good argument here and I keep getting people responding with the same old error of taking things out of context and now accusing me of being transparent.

Where oh where does a conservative go to get real logical arguments to convert the majority of independents and moderate liberals? And you got to face the facts, the guy appeals to the middle. I obviously picked the wrong place and I have the feeling that maybe there are just a bunch of DUers here putting down mindless comments and accusing those of us who would dig deeper and have all the facts at our disposal for real live arguments of being transparent.

Well, I guess I will end it here. I'm not getting anything I haven't already gotten and it just seems to breed more ad hominen attacks. I don't need to waste any more time. So you win -- you are so right and I'm so wrong and such a transparent Clark defender :->. Makes me wonder how anyone can ever ask serious and tough question here.

Adios Tonto. You shall never hear from the Lone Ranger again as he seeks greener pastures and deeper conservative minds.

[GOPJ]

He might have the first "chuckle", but we'll have the last laugh...

"I told him the Begin-Sadat Centre is a center for strategic studies in Israel and has made various studies on the Iraqi threat to the state of Israel and therefore we have carried out analyses of what connection there could be between Saddam Hussein and other militant Islamic groups," Hecht said.

"I don't know why I would be confused with the White House. I don't even have white paint on my house," he added. "I saw those comments he made and I just chuckled."

[GOPJ]

You've got the facts, Peach. You'll win with the folks who care about truth.

He still to this day refuses to acknowledge that "his candidate" has lied repeatedly and been caught lying - about a very important matter, I might add.

We can lead them to water, but we cannot make them drink (or read, apparently).

[Peach]

This is going to be so interesting (the investigation).

Thank you for all the info.

[Peach]

You did a great job on this thread, especially pointing out that Clark could have easily said to Hannity that the White House didn't call him on 9/11, thereby putting an end to this lie that Clark himself started on Russert's show and repeated at various other times on CNN.

[Peach]

Love the "transparent as Sharon Stone's panties". My good morning laugh to start the day.