Clark Tells The Truth!

[Gunthr]

I agree it is significant. I'm hearing rumors from all over that Clark carries a lot of baggage that hasn't come out yet. A lot of it relates to matters of judgement and ethics. Some military types say he is a certifiable nut case ... although I haven't yet seen proof beyond what is already widely known about him.

Here is what Dick Morris had to say about Clark:

Clark

[GRUNHERZ]

I didnt think you would - he's your party's boy afterall now isnt he?  I suppose you do know what the Serb armies were doing in Bosnia in 94 when this meeting happend, I suppose you know that Wes' hat buddy in that picture is General Ratko Mladic - allready known to be a nutorious criminal and a savage, I suppose you know Clark was  repeatedly advised by his superiors not to meet with him etc etc etc.  But he did and they had a hell of a time exchanging complements and gifts...


I was positive about his entry last week especilally considering the weak Democratic pool running now. Wes seemed to be a well educated, experienced, reasonable moderate but seeing that picture and reading up on the events that led up to it makes me seriously question his judgement and his ethics.

[Udie]

Originally posted by popeye
This is what Clark said:

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.


Notice that Clark said the "concerted effort...to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Suddam Hussein" came from the White House, people around the White House, and "all over".  He didn't say the phone call came from the White House.  (It wouldn't make much sense for him to say that the call came from "all over".)

I'm not saying he isn't a liar, (he does want to become a politician), but at least he didn't lie about a "call from the White House".

 Yeah except the one flaw to that argument is that Bush and Co. never tried to connect SH.  From day one they said they had no evidence to support that claim. So it very well could be that whole part of the interview was a lie, not saying it is, just sayin.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by popeye
I'm not saying he isn't a liar, (he does want to become a politician), but at least he didn't lie about a "call from the White House".

I guess that depends on what "call from the White House" means. You know, whether he meant "the White House" or "the  white house."

Actually it sounds to me like he was trying to attribute it to the White House but then decided he shouldn't be quite so specific about it. I remember a politician like that.

[MrLars]

Originally posted by Eagler
the "whitehouse told me to connect 911 to Iraq" lie?

rush will still be on the airwaves long after clark fades from the spotlight

Already answered by Pops...deleted message

[Sandman]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I didnt think you would - he's your party's boy afterall now isnt he?  I suppose you do know what the Serb armies were doing in Bosnia in 94 when this meeting happend, I suppose you know that Wes' hat buddy in that picture is General Ratko Mladic - allready known to be a nutorious criminal and a savage, I suppose you know Clark was  repeatedly advised by his superiors not to meet with him etc etc etc.  But he did and they had a hell of a time exchanging complements and gifts...

Generals don't answer to the State Department. This just in.

[Frogm4n]

Rush lies about pretty much everything. Why should anyone give that guy any credibility. He is just another draft dodger as you republicans like to point out.

[Udie]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
Rush lies about pretty much everything. Why should anyone give that guy any credibility. He is just another draft dodger as you republicans like to point out.

prove it

[MrLars]

Originally posted by Udie
prove it

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030918Davis.html

[lazs2]

I'm having trouble seeing how saying "he's full of ****"  is some sort of debate coup.    

Don't listen to rush but if the frog boy thinks he lies about everything then he might be worth listening to.
lazs

[Eagler]

Originally posted by popeye
This is what Clark said:

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,...

he'd fit right in..

what is the meaning of "came from the White House"?

what is the meaning of "is"?

he immeditely generalized it because he knew he had just screwed up on national television.. "It came from all over."

maybe it was Saddam that called his CNN show  

[Eagler]

Originally posted by MrLars
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030918Davis.html

I like the sock puppet analogy

[AKIron]

Originally posted by MrLars
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030918Davis.html

"In accusing Clark of begging for instead of earning his fourth star, Limbaugh is accusing Clark of violating Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.

Generally, if one makes such a serious charge, one backs it up with evidence. To no surprise to anyone familiar with Limbaugh's style, Limbaugh provided no evidence to back up his charge."



That's pretty weak. Just because Rush didn't back up his claim doesn't debunk it. Based on the delay of his promotion and his subsequent sucking up to the Clinton's I'm betting that Rush was right on target. Furthermore, Article 133 doesn't cover "begging for a promotion."

[slimm50]

Originally posted by lazs2
I'm having trouble seeing how saying "he's full of ****"  is some sort of debate coup.    

Don't listen to rush but if the frog boy thinks he lies about everything then he might be worth listening to.
lazs

I think ya might be onto sumpin there lazs.

[Toad]

but this didn't seem to be all that complimentary. Explains the hat thing too...

Brass Ambition


And I didn't think this one was either:


The General Jumps In


He's apparently already learned the "floppy fish" evasives though...

Only a day after his announcement, Clark told reporters on his campaign plane that if he had been in Congress last fall, he probably would have voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq. In a single sentence he had undermined the rationale for his whole candidacy—at least for those who saw him as Howard Dean with stars and a war record. Clark seems to have realized this himself, for the next day he reversed course. "I would never have voted for this war," he told the Associated Press. "I've gotten a very consistent record on this." His flip-flop delighted some of his rivals. "If it doesn't get any better than the first 24 hours," says a strategist for another Democrat, "he's going to be gone in two weeks." Dean's campaign manager, Joe Trippi, is warier. "The other campaigns make a mistake if they don't take him seriously," Trippi says. "It's going to take a month or two to know what to make of him." ...

...The mishaps did little to quell the private talk in Washington that Clark is a little bit, well, odd. Some saw a touch of Ross Perot in the man who implied in June that the Bush White House had pressured him to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein, and then backtracked by saying the call had actually come from a Canadian think tank with access to "inside intelligence information." He also claimed the Administration had tried to get him fired from cnn. Clark insisted to TIME that he had never said that was anything more than a rumor.

Just Sayin'