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.