Posted on 09/18/2003 12:25:15 PM PDT by areafiftyone
WASHINGTON—A Montreal man has emerged as the key figure in a controversy that has dogged Democratic presidential aspirant Wesley Clark during the summer months.
Questions have swirled since June when the former NATO commander alleged on national television that he was pressured to link the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in a mystery phone call he received.
Clark first implied the call, not long after the attacks, might have come from White House, then later said it came from a Middle Eastern think tank in Canada. He has never identified the caller.
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.
Clark's original claim and its subsequent variations had drawn much press and Internet attention in the United States as it became increasingly clear he was set to become the 10th candidate for the Democratic nomination.
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.'"
Clark, in the interview, said he asked for evidence of the link and received none and still hasn't seen any evidence.
As he prepared for his presidential bid, Clark backed away from his comment, denying he was drawing a link to the White House, telling Fox News in July: "I personally got a call from a fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank who gets inside intelligence information. He called me on 9/11."
Later in July, in another television interview, he said: The call came from "a man from a Middle East think tank in Canada, the man who's the brother of a very close friend of mine in Belgium. He's very well connected to Israeli intelligence and he follows Middle Eastern events very closely."
Hecht said his sister, who lives in Brussels, knows Clark socially.
One columnist, George Will of the Washington Post, took Clark to task because, he said, there was no Middle East think tank in Canada.
The Begin-Sadat Centre has its headquarters in Israel and its only office elsewhere is the one Hecht established in Montreal. Former prime minister Brian Mulroney is on its board, but strictly in a ceremonial role, Hecht said.
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.
Hecht said Clark called him in Montreal Sept. 7 this year to clarify the conversation the two men had, perhaps in anticipation of the question being raised again as part of his campaign.
"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."
The Clark campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
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.
Quote the part of the post that says "everybody hated him".
bump and a drip!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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."
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).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.