It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I have no doubt that Richard Clarke, the former National Security Council official who has launched a broadside against President Bush's counterterrorism policies, is telling the truth about every single charge.
....reporters aren't talking about the chapter of "Against All Enemies" that describes how Osama bin Laden cooperated with Iraqi scientists to make weapons of mass destruction - a development that, if true, would more than justify President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq.
In his book, Clarke describes how the Clinton CIA determined in 1996 that Sudan's Shifa chemical plant, which was allegedly bankrolled by bin Laden, was producing the chemical EMPTA.
Originally posted by Seekerof
Well worldwatcher, seems to me that you need to ask Mr. Clark, don't ya?
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Clark may be slamming Bush (on the surface) but he is still promoting the 9-11 myth - which in a sense covers Bush's a$$. It's better to look stupid than guilty.
More on this.. Here's an excellent essay by Justin Raimondo on 9-11 Revisionism.
It's the only way we'll get at the truth
by Justin Raimondo
"They will never give the full story" – that's what former Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the 9/11 Commission in protest over White House stonewalling, said to Amy Goodman on the "Democracy Now" radio program. But of course not. The Bushies would just as soon commit collective suicide. Just as we had to find out on our own the truth about the Iraq war – that there were no WMD, no links to Al Qaeda, no unmanned drones ready to strike American cities with God-knows-what: it was all a lie – so a similar revisionism is necessary when it comes to examining what happened on 9/11, and why.