NY Times: Tape Shows General Clark Linking Iraq and Al Qaeda

[Hawkeye-X]

Mods, I'm reposting this. It is not Jan 11th. It was put up today as shown as the link (2004/01/12).

www.nytimes.com/2004/01/12/politics/campaigns/CLAR.html

MANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 11 — Less than a year before he entered the race for the Democratic nomination for president, Gen. Wesley K. Clark said that he believed there was a connection between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda.

The statement by General Clark in October 2002 as he endorsed a New Hampshire candidate for Congress is a sign of how the general's position on Iraq seems to have changed over time, though he insists his position has been consistent.

"Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda," he said in 2002. "It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?"

At numerous campaign events in the past three months and in a book published last year, General Clark has asserted that there was no evidence linking Iraq and Al Qaeda. He has also accused the Bush administration of executing "a world-class bait-and-switch," by using the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as an excuse to invade Iraq.

At a town hall meeting here on Jan. 4, for example, General Clark said, "There was no imminent threat from Iraq, nor was Iraq connected with Al Qaeda."

---

More reason why no-one should support General Clark. He is being exposed as he is being scrutinized, and skipping the debates 3 times in a row did not help matters any!

Hawkeye-X

[mouse7]

1. Ooopsie.

Well, Dean had to absorb a shot to the body last night. Clark gets to do the same today.

[westman]

3. Kinda makes you wonder...

...who released the tape?

[KittyWampus]

70. Here's An Editorial For All The Misinformed Who Bought The NYTimes LIE

Moderators:I have author's permission to post his editorial in full on record.

It's a goddamned shame that DU'ers aren't willing to actually read past the Article Headline to see that it TOTALLY MISREPRESENTS the words out of Clark's mouth.

And it is Clark alone, out of all other Democratic Candidates who has exposed the PNAC agenda and held Junoir to task for 9/11.

Further, it says a lot about how little DU'ers even know about what went down in Iraq and yet pretend to be informed.
...........................................................................................................................................................................................

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

[muchacho]

2. hmmm

interesting...

Of course by saying there is a connection he's saying what a majority of Americans believe anyway...maybe he's just playing to the masses no matter what their ill-informed bias.

Isn't that what political campaigns are all about anyway?

[Zhade]

61. About misleading people?

If it's "playing to the masses", why vote for Clark? Bush does that just fine...

You can't actually think such an approach is a good thing, right?

[dennis4868]

4. There is an obvious answer to this....

Bush told the people of this country, including General Clark that there was a connection between Sadaam and Al-Queda. Like most Americans, Clark gave the Prez the benefit of the doubt. Now we know the President was lying about the connection. So why should Clark look bad here? He was misled like the rest of us!

[BeHereNow]

8. Oh PAH-LEEZE!

Only the severely sheeple-ized people in this
country were EVER misled by the shrub.
To suggest that someone as "inside" as Clark
was also misled is ludicrous.
He was simply following the orders of his
corporate puppet masters.
They needed a "military expert" to back their
claims, and he complied.
Your logic frightens me-
and I certainly do not want a person in the oval
office who could be misled so easily.
As a military general, it would be his DUTY to
thouroughly check out such rhetoric before
sending troops to war.
Think it through- do you honestly believe
that he didn't know that making such a statement
was completely irresponsible?
Do you also believe that as a military general
he did not know that there was NO connection?
Hell, we are everyday people here at DU and
we knew it was completely unfounded!
BHN

[dennis4868]

10. Remember....

he is a military person and they have been taught all their lives to trust the people in the WH. Yes, you and I never believed it because we both knew from the beginning that Bush is a lying bastard! But Clark was never a politcal person. The WH and Bush sais there was a connection and Clark ran with it. But as Clark got involved in politics and began to research the issues for his campaign he learned that Bush was lying to all of us and changed his feelings about the so called connections and the war in Iraq.

[BeHereNow]

20. No politics in the military?

What ARE you smoking?
You think some one attains four star with out politics?
You are living in a dream world or are completely naive.
Grow up, your country needs you.
BHN

[Sideways]

24. Dennis This is Hog Crap

My father is a 35 year term retired Naval flag officer and his mantra is trust your gut not the WH. It doesn't matter if Clark was apolitical or not he was deep on the inside and he made choices.

To suggest that Wes was just some ordinary Joe and he just didn't see what was going on is absolute trash.

You do realize that climbing the ranks of the military is political?

Wes has politics splashed all over his face. He is the product of politics.

Your assertion that Wes just saw the light when he got political is insane.

The guy is a fucking corporate lobbyist. He is a whore and a shill.

Do you really believe Wes didn't see the fucking lie that Iraq has become? Really?

[BeHereNow]

28. AND don't forget THIS FACT!

ALL OF THE MILITARY GENERALS AND ADVISORS WHO
STRONLY OPPOSED THE PNAC PLAN FOR WAR
WERE FIRED.
CLARK HOWEVER LANDED A CUSHY JOB
AT CNN AS A SHILL FOR THE NEOCONS.
AND YES, I AM SHOUTING- THAT IS BECAUSE
I CAN NOT BELIEVE THAT CLARK SUPPORTERS
HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THIS FACT.
SPEAK OUT? YOU GET FIRED.
FOLLOW ORDERS AND YOU ARE AWARDED
CORPORATE BOARD POSITIONS AND CNN STAR STATUS.
SPEAK OUT, YOUR WIFE IS OUTTED.
SPEAK OUT AND THE NEOCONS WILL GIT YA-
FOLLOW ORDERS AND PNAC PLAN YOU WILL BE REWARDED.
CLARK HAS BEEN ORDERED TO RUN TO SPLIT THE PARTY.
HE MOUTHS WHAT THE NEOCONS THINK THE DEMS WANT
TO HEAR AND YOU EAT IT UP IGNORING THE FACT THAT
HE IS ON RECORD AS SAYING THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE
OF WHAT HE IS NOW LAVISHING ON YOUR EARS NOW.
HE IS SPLITTING THE VOTE JUST LIKE RALPH DID.
THINK PEOPLE!

BHN

ON EDIT: Sorry to be so loud...I am going insane
watching this thing unfold, Bush is going to win,
and Clark will be rewarded, again- mark my words.

[Zhade]

62. Clark is more than a vote-splitter.

In my gut, I know he is the DLC plant.

[dustypen]

92. clark is a DNC plant

clark has been instered by Hillary so that no dem wins in '04 so she can run in '08. SHe cant run w/ a dem winning in '04 and she can;t til 2012.

Hillary in '08 is gonna be great......

[oasis]

99. A small detail is missing from your brilliant conspiracy. Clark may win.

[DoNotRefill]

46. Clark strikes me as an opportunist.

We didn't know he was a "Democrat" until he announced it a few days before he announced he was running for President on the Democratic ticket.

He made statements that if the White House had taken his calls, he'd have been a Republican.

He made it to the top of the military, which is notoriously conservative in the higher echelons.

And he has a fondness of paraphrasing Heinrich Himmler on a divisive political issue.

For the life of me, I can't see why DUers support him, except for the "we need a war hero" mentality, in which case Kerry is a better choice.

[Zhade]

63. Woah.

And he has a fondness of paraphrasing Heinrich Himmler on a divisive political issue.

Never heard that one before! Got a link?

[w13rd0]

9. He claimed that someone had called him after 9-11...

...and asked him to link 9-11 and Saddam, and he said he wasn't going to do it. When did he change his mind? Or did he just forget? Seriously, no record, and a democratic membership card fresher than the milk in my fridge. Is he just counting on being able to make it up as he goes along?

[returnable]

22. There's a huge difference...

...between suggesting there was contacts between Iraq and Al-Qaeda and Iraq being involved in the planning of 9/11.

In the NY Times article, Clark makes that point:

"All I was saying is that it would be naïve to say that there weren't any contacts," he said. "But that's a far cry from saying there was any connection between the events of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein."

[Dover]

12. "...the rest of us"??????

I don't know anyone who believed Bush. And Clark was privy to more insider information because he was LOBBYING the defense industry.

[FrenchieCat]

83. I will repeat what no one wants to read......

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.

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/wesley_clark_/2004/01/clark_tells_the_truth_and_is_called_a_liar_for_it.php

[TeacherCreature]

34. Not me

I knew bush was lying. But then I am a proud member of the 10 percent club.

[Terwilliger]

41. If you want to believe that, that would signify that Democrats are gullibl

and bit stupid overall

NO ONE should have been fooled...the Democratic party leadership failed MISERABLY in the run-up to war

[progressivebydesign]

47. C'mon..

I know that Clark is a Rhodes Scholar. Even we.. the humble people of DU knew that it was utter bullshit. And Clark has less of an excuse, because he is an insider. I just have wierd feelings about CLark. I keep thinking he's a decoy candidate for the Republicans, or at best a Republican who only switched for political gain. This looks bad for Clark.. This is on the heels of reports of his 800k lobbying contract for an arms manufacturer. And his former boss is a major dude in the Club For Growth, that scurilous group of attack dogs. Was he still part of that crowd when they ran those offensive ads against Olympia Snowe? YOu'd better do some homework, or be left holding the bag for a candidate that may not pass muster when the scrutiny comes his way.

[Zhade]

64. Club for Growth? The same group gunning for Arlen Specter?

Can I get a link? That's heady stuff.

[FrenchieCat]

91. Clark has and had nothing to do with

The Club for Growth. That is a guilt by association rumor that's being spun...the facts are as follows:

Stephens Group, Inc was run by Jackson T. Stephens, sr from 1956 to 1986. His son Warren A. Stephens has run the firm since 1986.

General Clark worked for Warren Stephens not Jackson T. Stephens, jr. The Club For Growth does not list Warren Stephens as a member.

You can visit the Stephens Group, Inc website at www.stephens.com, scroll down the left side bar and click on Stephens Leadership. You will not find Jackson T Stephens jr listed within the Stephens Group, Inc. management.
http://www.stephens.com/stephens/leadership/

Jackson T. Stephens sr supported the Clinton campaign.

[ET Awful]

5. It would seem to me that Clark, at the time, used the information he had

He has since obtained further information that changed his opinion and assessment of the situation.

This Whack-A-Candidate game is getting old.

[dkf]

6. That is right. And his information at the time made him support the IWR.

This is the basic problem with his campaign early on...that he can't admit he supported the IWR when he is on record as having done so.

[BeHereNow]

16. No whacking, just the facts.

What really scares me about supporters of various candidates
is the tunnel vision devotion.
It's no different than the blind devotion of the Bush supporters.
This is an objective observation and I do not support
ANY candidate at this point in time because ALL of them,
with the exception of Kucinich, have questionable ties
to the multinational corporations that are destroying this country.
What I see on both sides of the coin (left/right) are people
completely unable to view things objectively or critically.
Just fanatical, emotional, devotion to the object
of their obsession.
Very dangerous indeed-
BHN

[Zhade]

65. Very true, BHN.

NT!

[FrenchieCat]

85. Are you talking in the

mirror? You seem to be able to put down Clark supporters very easily irregardless of the facts......the facts are:

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.

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/wesley_clark_/2004/01/clark_tells_the_truth_and_is_called_a_liar_for_it.php

[kysrsoze]

7. I have liked a lot of what Clark has said up to now, but....

things like this, combined with his refusal to attend the caucus debates make me doubt whether he's a viable candidate. Everyone else has been bashed - he needs to step into it and debate these people if he expects to be nominated.

[joeunderdog]

27. I am not as high on Wes as I was before.

The drip drip drip of his past is perplexing. Too much is not known about him for me to commit to him at this point. I do like his directness, however.

[TeacherCreature]

33. What is direct about him?

I am not seeing his directness.

[dave29]

57. I've seen him talk around an answer

for three minutes without actually answering. This is one of the things that drives me crazy about Clark.

[Dover]

11. As a friend of mine said...."No I wouldn't vote for Clark. He is saying

everything I want him to say, but most of that seems to be a reversal from his stance only a short time ago".

Too many reversals...too much lip service....too many questions.

[BeHereNow]

18. One thing a Four-star General...

knows how to do is follow orders.
The military is so very democratic in that sense.
Democratic principles abound in the military and
that is how one earns four stars...
Oh, and black is white.
No questions, no debate.
Got that?
BHN

[Gloria]

13. The rebuttal is itself in the article:

The rebuttal is itself in the article:

"I never thought there would be any evidence linking Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein," General Clark said. "Everything I had learned about Saddam Hussein told me that he would be the last person Al Qaeda would trust or that he would trust them."

"All I was saying is that it would be naïve to say that there weren't any contacts," he said. "But that's a far cry from saying there was any connection between the events of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein."

In his most recent book, "Winning Modern Wars," (Public Affairs, 2003), General Clark states, "No evidence thus far suggests any link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists of Al Qaeda."

[RUexperienced]

14. This same article got locked earlier this mornig

Anybody know why?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

21. I have my suspicions..

For example, even thought the rules state:

Democratic Underground will not unfairly restrict attacks or rhetoric against any candidate in the Democratic Primary.
We have no desire to act as the arbiter for what types of political attacks are acceptable and what are not. Please be aware that our personal attacks rule does not pertain to Democratic candidates.

I know of one attack, against a certain candidate, that is NOT ALLOWED, and that earned me a warning for saying it. The fact that it was experessly allowed by the above rule did not seem to make any difference and the warning stood even after I appealed.

[Kinkistyle]

15. He says Hussein "didn't have any SCUDS", ergo: No WMDS.

He plainly states that he didn't think Hussein had SCUDS at the time - the major reason given for our invasion - and that the U.S.'s impending invasion was probably pushing Hussein to explore once closed channels with terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. I believed the same thing - that prior to the saber-rattling, Iraq and Al Qaeda were enemies, and that Iraq posed no threat to the U.S., however, if we were to threaten Hussein, they might very well get over their differences and team up against a common enemy in a perceived Jihad. This is perfectly consistent with a Democratic viewpoint at the time, and I agree with him.

[w13rd0]

17. Wow...

...my head's still spinning.

"Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda"

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.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."


I mean seriously, do you really want a guy who was taking marching orders from Bush and Rove AFTER the 2000 Coup? AFTER 9-11? Into the midterm elections (Nov 2002)? I mean, that was just a little more than a year ago. You know, back when he was a lobbyist petitioning the White House for business.

[Kinkistyle]

26. Sure.

Considering I was taking marching orders from the Libertarians after the 2000 elections.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

23. That is NOT what he is saying...

When he said he had no SCUDs he was not saying he had no WMD, he was saying he had no MEANS to deliver WMD, and that he would therefore not be surprised if Iraq was seeking to give them to Al Qaeda.

[Kinkistyle]

25. Wrong Reply

Blather

[Zhade]

67. Um...SCUDS were never considered WMDs.

They are pretty conventional weapons, if a bit modified. Hardly the NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) weapons cited so often and so deceptively by the Bushies.

[durutti]

19. Like I've been saying all along

The man is a false messiah. A fraud.

[BeHereNow]

29. Not a fraud, rather

a four star general who is doing what a four star
general does best-
following orders.
That is THE problem.
People seem to have some hollywood movie
fantasy about how one gets to be a four
star general in a system as corrupt as ours.
As a rule, four star generals are not in a position to
act from personal character or moral beliefs.
That simply is not how the military works, it is
totalitarian organization.
Do as you are told, or else.
As I stated earlier in this thread- those in the military
who did act from a moral character in speaking out
against the illegal invasion of two sovereign nation states.
pointing our the logistical dangers and risks to the men they
commanded were FIRED!
Get it?
Those who spoke in defense of the constitution and
military oath to protect their troops were fired. FIRED.
And ole Wes popped up on CNN...
WHAT does that tell you about Wes?
Detach yourself from your emotions and look at the
facts.
Wes is not a fraud, he is a military man taking orders
fully aware that he will benefit from doing so-
what are his options? Lose his corporate monetary
perks? Entrust, which he holds several thousand
shares in now has a cushy deal with homeland security
and will supply the technology soon to be
applied in airport security- the color coding of passengers.
If this is not a man talking out of both sides of his mouth at
once, then I don't know who is.
As the old saying goes, the truth is in your action,
not your word.
BHN

[lebkuchen]

30. You can hear Clark in this documentary say he doesn't think there was a

connection.



http://100777.com/node/view/567

34:24 into the documentary

Listen to the Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, and his babbling, right after Clark.

[David Zephyr]

31. This Will Hurt Clark With Dem Primary Voters. This Disturbs Me Greatly.

This is no small matter, folks.

This is not a "campaign gaffe".

I have given Wesley Clark a more than generous pass already on a number of issues, but this one is more than problematic. It merits a full and detailed explanation by the Candidate whose "opposition" to the War in Iraq has always been somewhat suspect.

I hope Wesley Clark, his campaign and supporters understand how damaging this can be to his appeal to hard-core Democrats---the ones that don't just talk about voting, but actually do go to the polls in Primaries. Clark needs to immediately let Democratic Voter where he stands on this quickly...and with details.

There was never any link between Iraq and Al Qaeda of substance. All purported "linkage" between them was discredited from the moment the Bush White House began trying to frighten and deceive the American in order to further build its fraudulent case for a pre-emptive war.

George Bush's war in Iraq and the manipulative lies spread by this Administration including the truly wicked lie that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were both involved "together" in the attacks of September 11th, 2001 have so angered die-hard, voting Democrats that any supportive or associative relationship with those lies by a Democratic Candidate will not go unpunished at the polls by them. And if there is any doubt about this, ask the anointed "front-runners" Joe Lieberman, John Kerry and Dick Gephardt who have been haunted and punished with loyal, high propensity Democratic Primary voters -- as consistently shown now for month after month in countless polls---for their support for Bush's War of Oil and the lies for making war.

Considering that Wesley Clark made this statement just as the U.S. was ramping up to invade Iraq and public sentiment at that time was highly supportive of going to war, one can not help but suspect that Clark either 1.) knew there was no relationship (even Bush admits there was no relationship), but chose to pander to the media and public; or 2.) was foolish enough to believe there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda in spite of all evidence to the contrary which was readily available at the time he made such an outrageous statement.

Memo to Clark supporters: If you, in knee-jerk reaction try to defend this stupid statement, then you will be doing your candidate a great disservice, for it will sour millions of high propensity Democratic Primary voters who had been looking more favorably to Clark.

This will help the candidacy of John Kerry, who has a bone fide liberal record of decades as opposed to Clark's brand-new Democrat blank slate because it evens the score between these two on the issue of Iraq. And with that parity, Kerry then towers over Clark with Democratic Primary voters on all other issues.

I'll be waiting to see what Wesley Clark has to say for himself about this. It is very disconcerting.

[heidler]

35. Clark will protect us from terrorist attacks is Pure Bush type propaganda.

Clark is playing on the people's fear in an area that no one can be sure.

[BeHereNow]

37. Welcome to DU...

Prepare yourself for the experience of observing the
dichotomous phenomenom of people engaged in serious
discourse that frequently has nothing to do with reality.
Emotions, not facts often dictate the discussion.
Hang in there and don't become discouraged when
people ignore any rational thoughts you may share... : )
It's not personal, simply symptomatic of the collective
neurosis that has gripped the nation. Left and right.
BHN

[lightbulb]

44. BHN makes sense

Your words are not falling only on deaf ears; what you are saying about clark may be dead on. I am looking for a democratic hero as desperately as the next person here, but as you point out we must not let our passions skew our objectivity. What a perfect trojan horse Clark would be...

"Get the nomination, then blow the election."

Sir, yes Sir!

[BeHereNow]

50. Read this: Indy Media

You are not the only one to come to this conclusion...
http://www.vermontindymedia.org/newswire/display/1672/index.php

The following is an excerpt from, Author, Political Analyst
and Terrorism Expert, Craig Hulet.
SCATHING, but impeccable in its sources and conclusions.
BHN

"Not to put too fine an edge on my humble presentation but the general may just be the biggest liar to have ever run for public office in American history. Indeed, the general, in this analyst’s humble
opinion, is set to protect the American-led Empire from any disruption, any change of course, set out by the present administration of George Bush Junior and his band of elite neo-conservatives.

General Wesley Clark has, for years, circulated in the very same circles as each neo-con holding senior positions in the present Bush administration and has been a board member of the institutions of
this American-led empire-building everywhere he could wriggle his skinny bullock’s way in. On the boards along with Clark are not a group of patriotic America-firsters, a pack of Pat Buchanan’s or
isolationists. Indeed, we find Clark in the company of nearly every significant Republican office holder who has pressed forward the corporate globalization agenda of the U.S. multinational monopoly
corporate structure for decades: i.e., Corporatism."

[David Zephyr]

39. Welcome to the DU!

:hi:

[DoNotRefill]

49. Sorry...

NOBODY can protect us from terrorist attacks. It's a simple impossibility.

Anybody saying they can protect you from terrorism is full of crap, REGARDLESS of party affiliation.

[BeHereNow]

51. Precisely...

It astounds me that no one questions the
credibility of a person who would make such
a ridiculous statement.
What, is he delusional?
Or just playing the gullible masses like nickel jukebox?
Truly disturbing, that people listen to such nonsense
and wave their little flags- reminds me of the crowds
who cheered Hitler on, or Bush for that matter.
Blind, nationalistic, patriotism.
Not a lick of sense in the whole stadium.

BHN

[bluedeminredstate]

36. Hi DZ!

I'm a Clark supporter and this disturbs me greatly. I need to hear more about this before I can just let it go. Shit, I knew there was no connection when they started peddling the Prague story in October of 2001. Why didn't he? This information doesn't square with his statements about the Pentagon asking him to push this alleged connection.

Bumming out here...

Good to see you - you're an elusive one around here. Where are you hiding?
:hi: :loveya:

[David Zephyr]

38. Greetings to My Dear Friend, Bluedeminredstate

Your reaction to Clark's statement is the same as mine. Bummed. I have been rooting for this guy and taking barbs from my fellow Dean supporters for doing so, which is why this statement by Clark is so disspapointing...and I hope he addresses it quickly and honestly.

I don't see this helping my candidate, Dean, but it could really boost Kerry's fortunes in New Hampshire.

I'm still around! :loveya:

[DoYouEverWonder]

32. It is reasonable to assume

that it would be possible for Saddam to have talked to al Qaeda? Heck he talked to everyone else in the world, including Rummie and Jimmie the Fixer. Besides is there a difference anymore between US secret ops and al Qaeda?

However, Clark did not suggest that we should invade Iraq and depose Saddam in order to solve the 'problem'. Or that if we did decide to invade that we would go in there with absolutely no interest in what would happen as a result of that decision.

[Ilsa]

40. Alot of people thought there was a connection.

There was some serious double-talk and propagation of lies going on about training camps in Iraq, for instance. It has only been a few months since Georgie the liar finally 'fessed up. Then Cheney went back on MTP and tried to reconnect them again.

[windansea]

42. what a load of crap

this article debunked in this thread...nice cut and paste job!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=105036

[Robb]

48. Thanks for the link

Much more interesting in context. Sheesh, people!

[windansea]

55. no problem

people need to see the context of these drive by cut and paste quote attacks attacks...and also see some rebuttals

[Zhade]

43. Hell, no way I could ever vote for this guy.

He spoke well of the School of the Americas. That's all I need to know.

[nolabels]

45. So what does this say then, 3 and 4 star generals don't know what.......

the hell is going on either or he is lying or possibly not too smart?

Take the Bob Barker conciliation prize, it will be less painful than the other three choices

[NotTooPrettyBad]

52. But he was a Republican then and now he is a Democrat

All should be forgiven since he is now on the one and only correct side.

[BeHereNow]

54. Welcome to DU!

Good one! The point I have been trying to make exactly.
BHN

[JohnOneillsMemory]

66. Clark is the most...'flexible'..dem. candidate regarding 'principles.' n/t

[dlviper]

87. We was an Independent, like most in Arkansas, not a repub

[Snivi Yllom]

53. and if thats not enough media whorism..

drudge is at it again...

NYT TUESDAY: DEAN CAMPAIGN HITS TURBULENCE
Mon Jan 12 2004 16:41:35 ET

Democratic Party officials now say that Howard Dean has slipped into turbulent territory, the NY TIMES is planning to report in Tuesday editions, beset by challenges and problems in both Iowa and New Hampshire, the two states where he was looking to nail down the nomination with early decisive wins.

Newsroom sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT how NYT's Nagourney is polishing a story about the Dean troubles.

"Dean's supporters expressed distress Monday at what many described as his faltering performance in a televised debate over the weekend, the latest in a series of difficulties he has encountered here," Nagourney claims.

"With the rest of the field working in Iowa, Gen. Wesley Clark has taken advantage in New Hampshire to move up in the polls behind Dean, drawing crowds that are beginning to rival Dean's and threatening his once dominant position in the state."

Impacting late Monday....

[dave29]

58. Dean's campaign has been in trouble

for 6 months running now. :eyes:

[jayfish]

78. Ya Know,...

I just don't get this mad media rush to try and declare a nominee before one single damn vote is cast. Nor have I ever heard anyone in the Dean camp claim they were going to "nail down the nomination with early decisive wins". Every time I see Dean or his camp interviewed they seem humble in their position and always make the point of saying that not a single vote has been cast. Where do they come up with this BS and why are they allowed to get away with it?

Jay

[Chomskyite]

56. Is it okay to change one's mind?

Is it permissable to at first believe your president, then as the evidence comes out showing the president was lying, to decide you believed a lie and then to call that lie what it was?

Or is that a venal sin worthy of losing a vote?

You decide.

[dave29]

59. Of course it's ok

to change one's mind. But when you are also saying that you have been consistent all along... thats another story. There's a difference between pragmatism and pandering. Clark hasn't gotten that down yet.

[jokerman93]

60. What's so hard to believe about it?

What's so hard to believe about Gen. Clark changing his views over time as he saw where the Bush WH was taking this country? I'd be willing to bet that's been happening with lots of folks over the past few years.

For those who think Clark is some kind of Neocon plant -- that's nonsense. Watch the Fox news analysis of the Dem candidates. They neglect to mention Clark most of the time, or perhaps make some vague comment as an afterthought about him gaining steam or something. The point being -- he's not a player. He's at the back of the pack with the other vanity candidates.

Don't you think he'd be given a little more emphasis if they were using him as a tool?

My guess is they're afraid of the man.

[nolabels]

84. I think you might be correct, O'Neil is another good example

People are falling out of the tree all over the place lately. Frankly I no longer care who gets the nomination in the primary. Anybody or thing would be better than *.

I think they would be even more fearful if Dennis took office, but it's still 'Anybody But Bush' for me

[Undemcided]

68. I guess there's more to come.

I do wonder who releases these snippets though.

[sandnsea]

69. Nobody KNEW

That's the bottom line. There was intelligence of meetings between Iraqi officials an al qaeda people. Nothing to start a war over, but certainly cause for CONCERN. That's what motivated every thinking person in 2002. Every single one of them. Dean said Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. Kucinich said inspectors must go into Iraq and weapons must not ever be sold to Iraq. EVERYBODY was concerned. That's what motivated some people to vote to authorize military force, the need for a threat of force to get inspectors in Iraq. Others decided to stick with the traditional kneejerk Democratic anti-war line and voted no. Regardless, nobody KNEW.

So can we put this damn vote aside and choose the best Democrat to beat Bush and lead this country where Democrats want it to go???

[robbedvoter]

71. Nice try. Debunked in the very article. My letter to NYT:

[e-mail]
Subject: Tape shows Clark linking Iraq and Al Quaeda

The short reply to this from Clark:
"I only brought it up to discount it"
The longer one is right in the article, although the reader has to go past the misleading headline and a number of empty paragraphs to what Clark really said:
"I never thought there would be any evidence linking Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein," General Clark said. "Everything I had learned about Saddam Hussein told me that he would be the last person Al Qaeda would trust or that he would trust them."

"All I was saying is that it would be naïve to say that there weren't any contacts," he said. "But that's a far cry from saying there was any connection between the events of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein."

So, my question is: why the deception? Why are the readers of the NYT treated to the interpretation of "another campaign" shrouding up the truth?
Everyone who watched Clark for the past 3 years or read his book knows his stand on this. The fact that Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror is a central reason of Clark's opposition to Bush, one of the reasons he is running.
Why would anyone distort that?
I mean, I do understand desperate candidates feeling hearing Clark's footsteps, but why the New York Times?

A New Yorker who will never again buy a copy of your publication until you correct your facts.

So, should I assume then that it was your candidate slipping the misleading tape?

[jayfish]

74. He Said As Much This Morning On CNN. -NT-

Jay

[robbedvoter]

77. Yes, and blew the whistle on CNN's censorship in the process:

 http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/14/ltm.14.html

CLARK: On the war, the record's clear and you all on CNN know that I've been against this war from the beginning. But I was even counseled, said, look, you're a military analyst, talk about the military side. I knew from inside the Pentagon early on, right after 9/11, that for whatever reason, the administration was decided not to go after terrorists, but to go after Saddam Hussein. It never made any sense. It was wrong and it was a diversion of resources.

So my stand has been very clear on that."

why is this LBN again?

[robbedvoter]

72. More debunking on Hardball

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3947572/
Up next, in the "Battle for the White House," is the "New York times" unfairly criticizing Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark over the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda?  I think they are unfairly criticizing him.

You`re watching HARDBALL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS:  Tonight`s "Battle for the White House," critics have accused retired General Wesley Clark of being contradictory with regard to the Bush administration`s reasons for going to war with Iraq. 

They accuse him of making inconsistent statements as to whether the government of Iraq was cooperating with the terrorist organization Al Qaeda, which blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. 

As evidence, "The New York Times" presents a videotape of General Clark speaking on October of 2002, in which he said he would have expected Saddam to seek help from Al Qaeda if the U.S. attacked. 

Well, Clark reportedly said, "Certainly, there`s a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.  It doesn`t surprise me at all that they would be talking to al Qaeda, that there would be some al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing, `Gee, I wonder.  Since I don`t have any SCUDs and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of al Qaeda?" 

But that`s not a contradiction.  Clark has consistently said there has been no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq before the move on Iraq and therefore was not a reason for our going to war. 

In 2002, Clark simply pointed out that when confronted with the prospect of an imminent American attack, Saddam would seek help where he could. 

And here`s what Clark said today. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLARK:  And the reason I made that statement is I was asked when I was in New Hampshire that day about the CIA report and what I was doing was discounting it.  In other words, saying that doesn`t--that did not establish the connection that led Al Qaeda, that proved that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. 

[robbedvoter]

73. Clark testifying on NO LINK for congress, Sept 2002

Clark's testimony to Congress Sept 26, 2002


http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm

CLARK: I'm saying there hasn't been any substantiation of the linkage of the Iraqi regime to the events of 9/11 or the fact that they are giving weapons of mass destruction capability to Al Qaida, yes sir
CLARK: Representative Saxton, if I could just tag along on that. I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard says, that there have been such contacts. It's normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat.

[sandnsea]

80. Ahem, "opportunities to cooperate"

This kind of sounds like Clark thought there could be links between al qaeda and Iraq, which is NOT the same thing as a link between Iraq and 9/11 or evidence that Saddam gave WMD to al qaeda. The difference is important. But nobody who had consistent intelligence over the years dismissed completely the idea that there could be cooperation.

" think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard says, that there have been such contacts. It's normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate."

[robbedvoter]

86. Nice try! Lower level contacts are not a LINK. Was it you with the tape?

"I only brought it up to discount it"
Which part of this statement do you not understand?
Tha bad faith here is staggering!

[Leilani]

97. The tapes have been sent

to all media by a rival campaign.

Paula Zahn showed it last nite & attributed it to a rival campaign.

It's either Kerry, Dean, or Lieberman.

I vote Kerry because he started a massive smear against Clark last week, & I documented it last nite on primary o4.

[robbedvoter]

75. Why is this lie broughT back to LBN? Dirty trick from "a campaign"

trying to spread lies about Clark. We had a run at it yesterday, now it's LBN again, why?
Everyone knows Clark wrote in his book, said on CNN, Faux (smackdown) MTP - CONTINUOUSLY that the Iraq war was a distraction from the war on terrorism. It's why he is running.
Half quotes from competitors make news and after debunking, make news yet again on DU? Despicable.
GENERALISSIMO FRANCO STILL DEAD.

[Solly Mack]

76. It's funny in a sad tragic way...the kind of funny that causes me

to become very tired of it all

That everyone who uttered a word regarding this war of Shrub's will now find they have to "utter" some more.

If people would just stick their beliefs from the get-go, then none of this "oh,what I actually meant.." or..."Bush fooled me" nonsense would be needed.

The war was wrong...it's bearing out everyday that it was/is wrong.
People could have just said that from the beginning.

So much easier to stick to principles...less uh, waffling that way

This is for anyone and everyone whose tune has changed based on political expendiency. The truth works...if you just give it a chance.

But what do I know...I'm just a stupid American voter.

[robbedvoter]

79. CLARK NEVER WAVERED! ENOUGH LYING! ENOUGH!

He told the truth - over and over and you are trying to muddle it. I

[Solly Mack]

81. I am muddling nothing, thank you very much

I just made an observation

I never said Clark lied.

I merely stated the truth from the beginning would serve people better.

And that people who said one thing at one time, will now have to say something else...

I never said Clark waffled. I was speaking to all who did though.

The article amused me on several levels.

[FrenchieCat]

82. the scary part is...

That no one is willing to READ anything...because that might change the whole reporting of this smear against Clark.....READ people, or Lose the election out of desperation to be Right even when you are wrong!

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.

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/wesley_clark_/2004/01/clark_tells_the_truth_and_is_called_a_liar_for_it.php

[Solly Mack]

88. Which is why the truth serves people better from the get-go

Even if it hurts...stay with the truth. About candidates, the war, Bush,etc.



You're correct...
The right will lie about Democrats enough...no need for Democrats to do it for them.

I'm still undecided, btw.

[goforit]

89. That was then and w/ new evidence things may change.

In a way that is one good thing about not having a trial,
there is more evidence to acrue.

[robbedvoter]

90. from the article:(NO ONE NOTICED THE LINK WAS BROKEN?)

I never thought there would be any evidence linking Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein," General Clark said. "Everything I had learned about Saddam Hussein told me that he would be the last person Al Qaeda would trust or that he would trust them."

"All I was saying is that it would be naïve to say that there weren't any contacts," he said. "But that's a far cry from saying there was any connection between the events of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein."

In his most recent book, "Winning Modern Wars," (Public Affairs, 2003), General Clark states, "No evidence thus far suggests any link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists of Al Qaeda."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/12/politics/campaigns/12CLAR.html

I also posted a working link. Interestingly, NO ONE ASKED FOR A WORKING LINK. NO ONE READ PAST THE SELECTED PARAGRAPHS IN THE OPENER.
The debunking is in the article - if you just read
You've been attacking Clark for 70something posts and NO ONE bothered to f*ing read the entire article??????

[FrenchieCat]

93. That's my point too....

no one is reading....but everyone is commenting.

Then we pretend to be so intellectual here at DU.....but is that the truth?

For some yes....but for many, no.....

They do not read.....this country as descended into a inferior mass...and the so called educated are really frauds?

No one is interested in Beating Bush, seems like....everyone instead is interested in calling people liars and flip/floppers....even when they are not.........The "Mad Dean mouth" Desease is spreading rapidly!

This is scary!

France is looking better and better everyday....at least there when they insist on making a point....they Read both the argument and the counterargument. I guess the Right has started to inflict the sheep mentality to the rest of the population!

[robbedvoter]

95. We are so smart, so much better than the sheeple - we don't even read but

we know this is so important as to base our vote on! yeay! So glad you guys are so thoughtful! NYT counts on you when they burry the truth on paragraph 5! Unf*ingbelieveble!
Is that power that you are supposed to have shortcircuiting your critical thinking abilities?

[ginchinchili]

94. YOU'LL HAVE TO DO BETTER THAN THAT

Obviously Clark was speculating that there were bound to be some connections between al Qaeda and Iraq, it only makes sense. And there were. Tenuous, but they existed,as there probably are in every other Arab country. And your point?

Clark doesn't say that we should invade Iraq because of national security issues involving connections between al Qaeda and Iraq. Clark doesn't say that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. Quite the contrary, Clark had repeatedly stated that there was no evidence of any connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. And Clark had always stated his opposition to the war. Like Clinton, Clark did recognize that Saddam was a problem that had to be dealt with. But Clark never advocated an invasion of Iraq, unilateral or otherwise.

What's sad is that you are trying to hang Gen. Clark with a rope of sand. To suggest that this brilliant, affable, 4 Star General shouldn't serve this country as our president because he figured that there was probably a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. That's either silly or desperate. If this, in your mind, should knock Clark out of the running, I can't imagine who you could possibly support. You're being rather silly, I think.

[QC]

96. Actually, it's silly *and* desperate.

And the post above had a great point about the hilarious spectacle of 70 posts purporting to comment on an article that no one could possibly have read. That would be bad enough at Freak Republic, but it is even worse on a site where people constantly preen themselves on their intellectual superiority to the mere "sheeple."

[GovtMule]

98. Please forgive me if this has already been covered, but...

I read the thread quickly, and I don't believe anyone has
mentioned my perspective. Even if Clark explicitly meant
that there were serious connections between Saddam and
al-Qaeda (which there aren't), in my opinion he's still in
the clear. From the NY Times article linked above:

"The 2002 comments, he said, were based in part on a
letter to Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida and
chairman of the Intelligence Committee, from George J. Tenet,
director of central intelligence, which said that the C.I.A.
had credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts
in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass
destruction. The content of the letter was reported in a
front-page article in The New York Times on Oct. 9, 2002, the
day that General Clark made the comments at the New Hampshire
endorsement."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/12/politics/campaigns/12CLAR.html

What's the man to do? Is he to dispute the NY Times front
page story from that day containing contents of a letter from
George Tenet saying there are Iraq/al-Qaeda connections? To
not concur with this at least a little would be incredibly
self-defeating. Was he really in a position to completely
contradict the CIA Director whose claim was on the cover of
the day's NY Times? Hell no. Now, knowing that those
reports eventually turned out to be uncorroborated and still
marching your country into unneccessary war is the granddaddy
of all lies.

Anyway, this is an argument I've been having with right wing
types in another forum. They've been spreading lies relative
to this via conservative editorials. The above got them to back off a bit.

[tabasco]

100. Not silly - scurrilous misrepresentation of a fine man.

Don't confuse them with the facts. They just "know" Clark is evil just like everybody in the military.