letters@nytimes.com
Subject: Tape shows Clark linking Iraq and Al Quaeda
article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/12/politics/campaigns/12CLAR.html
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.