08.12.11
Richard Clarke crawls back to the edge of the limelight
That fan of 80 buck white wine, celebrity natsec expert Richard Clarke, officially joins the world of 9/11 conspiracy today.
Broken by The Daily Beast, Clarke granted an interview for some 9/11 tenth anniversary radio documentary, one in which he avers the CIA “intentionally withheld information from the White House and FBI in 2000 and 2001 that two Saudi-born terrorists were on U.S. soil—terrorists who went on to become suicide hijackers on 9/11.”
The rationale: They were trying to “recruit” the al Qaeda men living in southern California as informants.
The decision to do the alleged cover-up was made by George Tenet, it reads.
The Beast shoots itself and Clarke in the foot a bit, mentioning way down in the story that the interview in which ol’ RC dropped this bomb was back in 2009.
The question arises: If this is so important why have we had to wait two years to just before the big tenth anniversary outpour on 9/11 to find out?
The answer is fairly obvious. Show business. It’s not really important whether it’s true. It’s just important it achieve maximum impact in the media for the benefit of the radio show’s producers.
Clarke became a hero — if that’s what you want to call it — for his 2004 book, “Against All Enemies, [and] testimony on Capitol Hill about the Bush administration’s alleged absence of diligence in the war on terrorism.”
All of this, and 60 Minutes, made Clarke the darling of Democrats who thought, for sure, he would help bring down George W. Bush.
My brief experience with the frivolity is documented here, in a cover story at the Village Voice entitled I, Vermin from Under Rock.
It made Clarke a fortune in book contracts, magazine articles and consulting/speaking fees.
But the Democrats were thrown to the dogs in the Presidential election, anyway.
A radio documentary isn’t nearly as big a deal — although — if the story is repeated enough, it might become one.
Clarke’s last book was on cyberwar and while it gets its mentions on that beat it’s trivial business compared to the daily news of despair, national paralysis, economic collapse and mass unemployment.
But 9/11 outrage timed right for the anniversary media splurge, now that’s an entirely different kettle of fish. There will be many many people who dearly want to believe in another story of cover-up and betrayal.
Wouldn’t it be nice to make another pass through the rotunda again with renewed book contract?
Tin foil hat time sez one commentator at Philly News.
Hat tip to Frank.
Luther Bliss said,
September 14, 2011 at 10:10 am
Mr. Smith,
Your personal animus against Richard Clarke (which might be completely justified I don’t know the situation) is doing damage to the dedicated people doing real research into “another story of cover-up and betrayal” on 9/11.
This posting of so many ad hominem attacks (fan of 80 buck wine, darling of Democrats, tin-foil hats) threatens to obscure the inescapably documented fact that -something- was causing the CIA to withhold information on the hijackers enter into America in the months leading up to 9/11. (see Kevin Fenton’s Disconnecting the Dots for the most complete version on these events publicity available).
If your personal research causes you to think Clarke is spinning this story to his advantage (political or monetary) than state this potentially helpful knowledge in a manner that does not tar the many fine 9/11 researchers who have independently pieced together a narrative the -broadly- corresponds with Clarkes’ with the same brush.
George Smith said,
September 14, 2011 at 10:38 am
Ad hominem, baloney. The war on terror has been financially very good to Richard Clarke. It’s beyond dispute and it, along with a constant reliance upon and monetization of argument from authority, has a lot to do with what I write now. And have in the past on the matter.
Read over the blog. The subject matter has nothing to do with 9/11 conspiracy thought.
By the way, I didn’t push the premium wine in a book of fiction. I just noticed the odd and clumsy product placement.