I wonder when it will get a weeks' worth of attention in Mallard Fillmore?

I don't know the facts here Brian so I can't discuss them, but I still have a real problem with you linking Rush Limbaugh, William Safire, George Will and Glenn Reynolds. First, I see many differences between the first three - no lock step there, they just all happen to be broadly conservative. But where does Glenn Reynolds fit this picture? Has he attacked Clark regarding this matter? What exactly is your animus against Glenn Reynolds, who isn't even a Republican? As far as I can tell, and I read him pretty often, he is a pro-war, pro-gun, pro-civil liberties moderate. Surely there are far more lock step conservatives, and ones with far less integrity than Glenn.

This is funny. The exact quote, from the howler, is this:

CLARK: ...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 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."

CounterPunch isn't much of a fan either. Ouch. I don't think I buy their spin on General Clark. The story is a bit short on proof in a few areas. But General Clark, it appears, has some hurdles to climb within his own party before he has to worry about President Bush.

paranoia will destroy ya

Ray Davies and Stephen Stills both warn against it.

Over to you, Hugh!

"FAIR's records of his stance on Iraq smacks of something slightly more dishonest. "

Which quote was dishonest?

Disregard comment #8, I just took the time to really read it.

The following verbatim quote from remarks made two weeks ago by retired Army Chief of Staff, General H. Hugh Shelton are far more devastating to the ever diminishing reputation of General Clark(these remarks are available on numerous websites):

"I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

I'm quite ready to leave this whole thing behind - I don't really care. But I did come across the Toronto Star article in another context, and I hadn't actually previously read it. It tends to support my theory that General Clark simply made a mistake, but the Thomas Hecht isn't really much of a "defender," pointing out that General Clark got the date wrong and that he has no idea where Clark would have gotten any idea he was linked to the White House. "I don't even have white paint on my house," he says.

Which leads me to wonder if maybe there is another person about whom General Clark was thinking. Since we know now that there are no Middle-East think tanks in Montreal outside of Mr. Hecht's home office, apparently, my guess is that he confused Mr. Hecht's call with others that were perhaps more directly tied to the White House?

Of course, it is possible that General Clark is simply a liar, but I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Howler:

WHAT CLARK SAID: For the record, we are generally skeptical about first-time candidates, and Clark has made some clear mistakes. (For example, he shouldn't have repeated the "rumors" that the White House tried to get him canned from CNN.) But when Clark appeared on the June 15 Meet the Press, he did not say that the White House called him about Saddam and September 11. Here is the relevant passage:

CLARK: 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 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.

Can you read? If so, you will note that Clark didn't say that the phone call came from the White House. And when people began to think that he had, he clarified what he had meant. That's the way that decent people conduct a public discussion. But as we learned in the last election, your "press corps" is full of lying liars and fools. For example, note what Ben Fritz pointed out in Spinsanity: Note the way Will rearranged the order of Clark's Meet the Press remarks to make it seem that he'd tied that call to the White House. In a real professional sector, people get fired for frauds of that type. But at the Washington Post, it's OK. By the way, Fred Hiatt "edits" Will at the Post, Gail Collins "edits" the worn-out old Safire. Read much, Fred and Gail? And do you really think that American citizens are prepared to put up with this clowning again? Your papers made a joke of the last White House race. Do you really think that you'll be allowed to produce this lying lying once again?

Mr. Fleming can spin and spin the words of General Clark to the end of time. Nothing he can say, however, will contradict the views of those closest to him in Kosovo who have publicly stated that the man has no limits to what he will day or do in the furtherance of his career. Many of the most senior officers in the Pentagon declined to attend his retirement affair. Also, just look at what his boss at the time has to say(link in one of the comments above).

" he did not say that the White House called him about Saddam and September 11."

"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 people around the White House. "

Granted, I'm not a Rhodes Scholar, but it sure sounds like he did say that the call came from the White House.

I suspect, like Phillip, that Clark made an error. At the same time, I would never support a man of war (and regardless of his views on Iraq, with which I agree, he's a former general and certainly not anti-war) to be president, dogcatcher, or anything else.

Well . . . maybe I can clear this up with an account from the lefty cult hero Michael Moore (from michaelmoore.com):

"My wife and I [i.e, Michael Moore] were invited over to a neighbor's home 12 days ago where Clark told those gathered that certain people, acting on behalf of the Bush administration, called him immediately after the attacks on September 11th and asked him to go on TV to tell the country that Saddam Hussein was "involved" in the attacks. He asked them for proof, but they couldn't provide any. He refused their request."

Someone is lying, as Brian Carnell notes:

"Who Is Lying -- Michael Moore Or Wesley Clark?

By Brian Carnell

Wednesday, September 24, 2003

Michael Moore has a bizarre post on the front page of his web site. Bizarre because it is another of Moore's rambling essays in support of Wesley Clark for president, but on the other hand if Moore is right then Clark is again lying (one way or the other) about that mysterious call he claims to have received after 9/11 telling him to blame the attacks on Iraq.

Clark originally implied that the call came from the White House, but backed off and later maintained it was from a Middle Eastern think tank in Canada. According to Clark, nobody from the White House ever asked him to blame 9/11 on Iraq. Clark's last version of events was that he simply learned later that people in the White House were supposedly also discussing spinning the attacks to blame Iraq.

But Moore writes,

My wife and I were invited over to a neighbor's home 12 days ago where [Wesley] Clark told those gathered that certain people, acting on behalf of the Bush administration, called him immediately after the attacks on September 11th and asked him to go on TV to tell the country that Saddam Hussein was "involved" in the attacks. He asked them for proof, but they couldn't provide any. He refused their request.
Now the person with the Canadian Middle Eastern think tank has already come forward and said that he didn't call Clark until days after the 9/11 attack and he was relying on information passed along by people he knows in the Israeli intelligence community.

So is Clark changing his story on this mysterious call again? Or is Moore just distorting what Clark said (that wouldn't be the first time for Moore distorting reality)?"

See http://brian.carnell.com/articles/2003/09/000031.html

Clark originally implied that the call came from the White House, but backed off and later maintained it was from a Middle Eastern think tank in Canada.

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 point is that, on the one hand, Clark wrote the following to the New York Times on July 18, 2003:

"I would like to correct any possible misunderstanding of my remarks on 'Meet the Press,' quoted in Paul Krugman's July 15 column, about 'people around the White House' seeking to link Sept. 11 to Saddam Hussein.

"I received a call from a Middle East think tank outside the country, asking me to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein. No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11."

(See http://www.pandagon.net/archives/00001512.htm)

But then, on the other hand, Michael Moore wrote this on Sept. 23, 2003:

"My wife and I [i.e, Michael Moore] were invited over to a neighbor's home 12 days ago where Clark told those gathered that certain people, acting on behalf of the Bush administration, called him immediately after the attacks on September 11th and asked him to go on TV to tell the country that Saddam Hussein was "involved" in the attacks."

(See michaelmoore.com)

Someone is lying.