Wesley Clark and Terry McAuliffe

The Weekly Standard- 'The Scrapbook' ^ | 08/25/03

[ALOHA RONNIE]

H = H = H =

HILLARY = HO CHI MINH = HITLER

[DPB101]

So what's up with the little Rodhams? They've been out of the news for a while. Making deals in Ickfreakistan or somewhere? Tony get beat up again by a jealous boyfriend?

[hermes509]

Guys,

We really need to read over this Weekly Standard article on Clark. I just don't think is going to hold. I'm going to play devil's advocate here so let me know if I missed anything. Its not a good idea that our arguments be made by taking what the guy said out of context. So please contribute and let me know where my devil's advocate argument is wrong:

First off look at the what Russert asks the guy and how he answers it:

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've 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

The first part of his answer is responding to the idea of hyping the link between 9/11 and Saddam and how that was being done by the White House. But then he transitions and says 'It came from all over'. He then tells about his personal call and what he was instructed to say. This is where Krugman links the call to the White House. However, Krugman misses the transition and he misses the part that immediately follows where he says 'And these were people who had-Middle East think tanks and people like this'.

The important 'call' that everyone is stuck on is linked to the middle east think tanks from the first interview with Russert.

In the second interview with Hannity, Sean is asking him about the call and 'who in the White House'. Hannity is linking the call to the White House and wants to know who made it. Clark is at fault for not correcting the misperception at this point, but when you see how he answers he talks about a White House source, not caller. A source is an insider who he is using to justify his claim that the White House is involved in the 9-11/Saddam link hype. However, he then goes on and specifically talks about the caller, who is from Canada and involved in a Midde East think tank.

And the third part is about Clark's correction of Krugman. Clark is actually consistent here if you really read what he says. Its Krugman who is off base (what's new), not Clark. The Weekly Standard (and Hannity) plays into Krugman's thinking and puts the same words in Clark's mouth that Krugman does. That’s kind of sad actually. We should expect better analysis.

Let me know what I'm missing. It just doesn't stick and if I'm going to be trying to convince people I need something with a little less holes in it.

[onyx]

Thank you for your excellent commentary! I'm so glad you've joined this thread!

[ALOHA RONNIE]

NEVER FORGET


...a HILLARY RODHAM...

...& BILL CLINTON...

that were on the side of...

our Terrorist Enemy HO CHI MINH...

against US and Freedom...

during the Vietnam War...

...are still on the Side of our...

terrorist enemies...

as they refused to bring...

OSAMA bin LADEN here as offered...

during the 1990's...

...3 Times.

The Blood of Many just drips...

from the Sleeves of...

...the Enemy Within CLINTONS.


NEVER FORGET

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Jimmy Valentine's brother]

Thanks for the reference. I remember the quote but not the source. I thought it came from the premier during Shrillary's visit to China for the International Conference on Womyn.

[Jimmy Valentine's brother]

I second A-G's #26

[DPB101]

Referring to the White House, Clark said:

"I'm not going to go into those sources."

End of story.

[hermes509]

End of story

Maybe for you, but I don't have the luxury of arguing outside of the context of all three examples. Where is the contradiction in what he says? He has seperated the Canadian think tank caller from the white house source in all three cases. He is clarifying this seperation in his letter to the New York Times.

Am I missing the issue? Is it because he isn't going to go into the sources (what you are citing from Hannity & Colmes) that is the problem? The way the Weekly Standard story read to me is that he originally said that the White House called him. I never see where he says that starting from the Russert interview. So he has a White House source, so what? Maybe he should name him, maybe not. As far as that one call that he got on 9/11, he answers it in his letter and to Hannity.

You got to give me something stronger than that.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOL! I'll see your bump and raise you one!

[doug from upland]

Great article. Terry Mac is a lowlife POS, almost as low as Bill and Hillary.

[DPB101]

You got to give me something stronger than that.,p> No I don't.

[hermes509]

Well thanks for the effort. No one else is really making an effort to help me with this. The article appears spinned and based on what Krugman has to say so its useless to me. The people I need to convince are going to be able to rip this article to shreds and end up discrediting the Weekly Standard in the process.

[baseballmom]

... "Hyped by whom?" asked moderator Tim Russert. 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."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from ...

Clark is saying CLEARLY that it came from the White House. He is also "THINKING"(out loud-for all the world to hear the smear) that the White House started a "concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.

I would say that immediately after 9/11, yes, indeed, there was a lot of speculation going on about just WHO was responsible for the horror. Wouldn't YOU be speculating about just who would have done this - and trying to leave no stone unturned.

Clark can NOW write any letter he wants to try to clear up the "misinformation". He knows damn well, that having gone on Tim Russert and Sean Hannity, insinuating this "hype", his job is done. He has sowed the seeds of distrust and the rest of the Rats have run with it.

Does this answer PART of your question.

[hermes509]

Does this answer PART of your question.

Part is a good way to put it, but it doesn't get to the essence of the debate I'm having. Thanks anyway baseballmom -- I agree with what you are saying. He was thinking out loud, he did imply that the White House was part of the 9/11-Saddam link and also I understand that there was a lot of speculation on the issue and don't blame anyone for speculating. Of course my sympathy doesn't really matter nor do the ad hominen attacks. Here is what I'm getting nailed on.

1) The Weekly Standard seems focused on Clark's inconsistency between the three sources
2) They use this inconsistency to question his credibility and say does he have an imaginary friend
3) They never prove their point

The Weekly Standard just seem to be debunking Krugman's credibility. Who needs more of that? In fact, my friends say this article just shows how unpartisan and honorable Clark is because he took away Krugman's spin on his Russert statement while maintaining consistency.

Clark can NOW write any letter he wants to try to clear up the "misinformation"

Clark's letter to the New York Times to correct Krugman says Subsequently, I learned that there was much discussion inside the administration in the days immediately after Sept. 11 trying to use 9/11 to go after Saddam Hussein.

He never backed down from his original claim that there was this idea to pin 9/11 on Saddam and that the idea was floating around in the White House. His letter is consistent with his statement on Russert's show. And he explicitly links the call he got on 9/11 to a mideast think tank. The call and the source are separate and according to my friends the reason he doesn't name the source is appropriate because the Bush administration has "apparently" shown their true colors and ability to play dirty by leaking the fact that Joseph Wilson's wife as a CIA agent.

Of course, I could care less about naming the source. I'm just trying to uphold the Weekly Standard's credibility, gather some ammo for the future election, and show the inconsistency they claim exists.

[Joy Angela]

H = H = H =

HILLARY = HO CHI MINH = HITLER

That sent chills down my spine.

[sultrysaturnlady]

Someone, anyone....please make the connection between the CEO of the PNAC...and the editor of the Weekly Standard, because it is ONE AND THE SAME MAN...William Kristol....doesn't that then, give anyone a clue as to what this is really about???? The original signers of the PNAC, Cheney, Rumsfelf, Khalizad, Liddy, and on and on, are all part of the current administration...discrediting Clark would, of course, be in their best interest...
Everyone also has to remember, that the interview on MTP between Russert/Clark took place 21 MONTHS AFTER 9/11...AFTER the fact, not the next day or the next month even....and 1 1/2 months AFTER BUSH had declared the official "war in Iraq" over...Now, can anyone here really deny that the WH and Bush tried to connect Saddam with 9/11 after 9/11 and before the "war"? Come on guys, be honest here...Clark and Russert were discussing 9/11, whether what Bush did, how Bush handled 9/11, going to war with Iraq and was it handled the right way, when Clark made the comment that he had received a phone call on 9/11...HE NEVER SAID THAT CALL CAME FROM THE WHITE HOUSE...what he was saying, was that between 9/11-war in Iraq, the WH was trying to convince the American people that Saddam, and 9/11 were connected, then he mentioned he had received a call on 9/11 from an outside of the country person, connected to a ME think tank, that had inside information, telling him to make the connection, which he said, he wouldn't do w/o proof, and up to that point, he had seen no proof...I suppose that Bush continually mentioning 9/11, Saddam, terrorism in the same sentences in every speech he made after 9/11, and before he attacked Iraq, as a consequence, doesn't qualify as hype?????I would say so, last poll I recall, said that 49% of Americans still believed that Iraq/9/11 were connected..Which they weren't...so what would you call that, if not HYPE????
People only need to read the transcripts of these interviews, and pay attention to what was ACTUALLY SAID, and how what was said, came about, to see how the whole thing has been totally SPUN out of control..Hannity took what Clark said on MTP with Russert, misconstrued his comments, and the context they were made in....Krugman, then took the ball, misconstrued the content even further, and ran with it, writing an article in the NYT...geeze...READ THE INTERVIEWS, READ WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID...or better yet, watch them...www.digitalclark.com...

[Shermy]

Ping.

[Peach]

Thanks for the ping. I had to go out and would have missed this as it slips from the Extended or Breaking News section.

Saved to my Clark files.