Clark Tells The Truth & Is Called A Liar For It

[KittyWampus]

Moderators, I have the author's permission to post this in full on record.

I had posted this in Primary Forum which is now gone. This refers to the NYTimes article which literally lied about Clark's statements.
.....................................................................
Clark Tells The Truth And Is Called A Liar For It

In October 2002, the New York Times ran a story about connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda, part of the "liberal" media support effort for the White House disinformation campaign trying to pin responsibility for 9-11 on Iraq. (That effort was a success: to this day, most Americans believe that Iraq was responsible for 9-11, despite the fact that the operation was clearly paid for mostly with Saudi money and staffed 75% by Saudi nationals. (As discussed here.)

A reporter challenged Wesley Clark, already by then critical of the push to invade Iraq, to respond to that story. He said what any sensible person would have said: it's not surprising that there were some contacts between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government, so documentation of such contacts isn't really evidence of an Iraqi role in 9-11.

He was right about that, of course: Of all the people and documents we captured when we won the war, not a single one points to any connection between Saddam Hussein and 9-11.

Today's New York Times has another story, in which Clark's earlier statement is portrayed as contradicting his more recent skepticism about an Iraqi role in 9-11. But that's nonsense.

Saying there were links between Iraq and al-Qaeda is one thing.

There were.

Saying there was a link between Iraq and 9-11 is a different thing.

There wasn't.

Why is that concept so hard for Edward Wyatt to grasp?

After all, there were, and are, links between US intelligence and the Syrian secret police. Maybe there shouldn't be, but there are. But only in some Chomskian parallel universe does that make the United States responsible for the massacre at Hama or Syrian-sponsored terrorism against Israel.



Update: Steve Koppelman has a review of other b.s. charges, starting with Al Sharpton's race-baiting of Howard Dean. It's hard to decide whether the sloth of reporters in not noticing real scandals is more unprofessional and worse for the country than their habit of reporting fake scandals as if they were real, or vice versa. Call it a draw.
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/wesley_clark_/2004/01/clark_tells_the_truth_and_is_called_a_liar_for_it.php

[democratreformed]

1. Thanks cryingshame

Your posts are always informative.

[JPJones]

2. Testify

You speak the truth.

Drudge doesn't speak the truth.

Hannity doesn't speak the truth.

The RNC do not speak the truth.

Tsk, tsk to any Democrats who use Drudge, Hannity or the RNC as a primary source for a story.

I don't really blame CNN, the NY Times, etc. because they aren't malicious, they are just lazy.

[JPJones]

3. Clark's style

He lays out his opponent's argument. He says what is correct about their argument.

He then refutes the rest. If you look at only the first half of his speech, it looks like he is saying the opposite of his intended thesis.

[Bread and Circus]

11. Man, that is really observant of you...even when Clark praised Bush in...

2000 or whatever...he just used it as a stage to tell
all the folk what the heck they should be doing.

It's like that a lot with Clark and unfortunately he has
paid too dearly for such a style. He has overcome it I
think.

It's too bad we live in a day of the "reign of the
professional politician" but I guess it has probably always
been like this.

[lovedems]

4. So, they are doing to Clark what they did to Gore in 2000.

At least Clark has a heads up since I assume he was paying attention to that mess. He is right on target, to show how they are twisting his words and taking them out of context, before the damage is done.

[mzmolly]

5. They're doing to Clark what they've been doing to Dean for 9 months.

This means Clark is a contender. This is just the beginning folks.
Everyone is gonna be digging for Clark dish. :donut:

[KittyWampus]

6. Yes, Although Clark Has Been Exposing The PNAC Crowd

and I don't really recall Gore coming close to doing that.

[lovedems]

7. Well, he has the power to show them for what they really are

sick, twisted lunatics who don't have an ounce of moral fiber. BTW, I think there are other candidates capable of that as well but they are really going after Clark and the war comments.

If Clark wins the nomination, the general public will KNOW about PNAC and their f'd up vision of the future.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

8. That's what I said yesterday

Somebody got upset with me for it. There were links to al qaeda, very hazy, but links. Reason for concern. But to 9/11, no and I don't know of a Democrat who said there were, except maybe Lieberman.

[Hawkeye-X]

9. Maybe that is what Clark is..

And maybe he didn't tell the truth. Maybe he did. That is what Clark is - a flip flopper that tells people what they want to hear to "feel-good". First he was for Iraq war, and now he's not. That tells me exactly who Clark is, and more importantly, what he really is.

Hawkeye-X

[Bread and Circus]

13. I disagree, Clark is no flip-flopper he stands firm in the face...

of adversity and opposition.

[Clark Can WIN]

10. It's far more fun and profitable

To stir the pot and throw out a bunch of half baked manure than it is to do actual reporting anymore.

[Clark4VotingRights]

12. Thanks cryingshame. Sadly this is typical of the smears on Clark.

They're often out of context quotes, or outright lies.

But they're gonna attack the Dem nominee like this.
So I think he's the Dem best equipped to deal with such tactics.
He has the resume, temperment, intellect, and backbone.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.