It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Richard Clark: Why He's Right About Bush Negligence on Terrorism

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 11:53 AM
link   
The smear machine's out in full-force. Dick Cheney's out there talkin' 'bout how former NSC official Richard Clark was "out of the loop" on the war on terror. How can that be? As Fred Kaplan writes on slate.msn.com, Clark was the loop. This administration's lies are a house of cards built on shifting sand. They better look out, a big wind is coming.


Dick Clarke Is Telling the Truth
Why he's right about Bush's negligence on terrorism.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 3:22 PM PT



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. There are three reasons for this confidence.

First, his basic accusations are consistent with tales told by other officials, including some who had no significant dealings with Clarke.

Second, the White House's attempts at rebuttal have been extremely weak and contradictory. If Clarke were wrong, one would expect the comebacks—especially from Bush's aides, who excel at the counterstrike—to be stronger and more substantive.

Third, I went to graduate school with Clarke in the late 1970s, at MIT's political science department, and called him as an occasional source in the mid-'80s when he was in the State Department and I was a newspaper reporter. There were good things and dubious things about Clarke, traits that inspired both admiration and leeriness. The former: He was very smart, a highly skilled (and utterly nonpartisan) analyst, and he knew how to get things done in a calcified bureaucracy. The latter: He was arrogant, made no effort to disguise his contempt for those who disagreed with him, and blatantly maneuvered around all obstacles to make sure his views got through.
www.slate.msn.com...




posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   

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.


I'm sure you don't, then again, maybe Mr. Clark wasn't lying about anything, eh?
Clarke: Iraq Teamed Up With Bin Laden To Produce WMD.


....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.


Let's see the amount of 'spin' that comes of this one, of many more.



seekerof

[Edited on 24-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 12:05 PM
link   
that's fascinating seekeroff, but a few key words in your post; IF THIS IS TRUE?

yes IF it is true, but where is definitive proof? where is proof of the WMD's?

where's the proof?

so far all of this is between all sides involved has been allegations without substantial backing...and I do believe Clarke had ulterior motives with his book.



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Well worldwatcher, seems to me that you need to ask Mr. Clark, don't ya?




seekerof



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Well worldwatcher, seems to me that you need to ask Mr. Clark, don't ya?

seekerof


arrange a meeting and I will



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Go to one of his upcoming book-signings...I mean, after all, those are the wrods and quotes taken from his book.


seekerof



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I posted that article because the writer (Kaplan) was objective and knows Clark. For me, the jury is out on Clark. I've never trusted him.

Personally, I believe key, high-level officials in the Bush administration (and possibly Clinton's National Security apparatus) knew the attacks were imminent. I contend they allowed it to happen to promote their PNAC/Clean Break agenda.

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.

[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   

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.


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.
antiwar.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join