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?
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.