Whenever you write a blog post on any subject, there are several things that can happen. 1) There is no response whatsoever; 2) You get a fairly “ho-hum” response; Or 3) You strike a hornet nest and get a flurry of a response.
In the case of my recent post on Richard Clarke, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and the End of Richard Clarke, I have hit number 3. The readership on it went through the roof, and I was fortunate to get a response from the people behind the controversial interview with Mr. Clarke. That response is offered below.
I share this because the film producers make a good point as it relates to the comments that Mr. Clarke made in their film. In researching my post, I referenced the original Daily Beast article and a recent Washington Post article. What I did not reference were the numerous other articles I had also read on this subject. (I try not to go overboard with hyperlinks in my posts, even if I find articles that essentially reprint the same story several times.) In researching on Sunday and Monday, I missed the fact that the film producers posted a snippet of the Clarke interview on YouTube.
It is only fair that readers of my original post watch it. We undoubtedly will see even more when their film comes out on their site on September 11.
I owe Mr. Clarke and the film producers the same platform to offer their take on this issue as I have offered mine. I’m glad to have their feedback and appreciate that they took the time to share it (along with the interview link). If I had found their link prior to receiving it, I would have included it with my original posting. It’s here now for further viewing and debate.
Despite the new materials they have shared, I still want to see the proof behind the charges that have been made. In their response to me, the producers stated, “a good number of former gov’t officials from various agencies have been coming to us to back up Clarke’s basic assertions, providing various details and first-person accounts that make clear that Clarke is not simply a ‘conspiracy theorist.’ All will be released on our web site, SecrecyKills.com, on 9.11.11 (free of charge, by the way, in case you think we are hucksters motivated by greed).”
What’s been charged of Tenet and others in the CIA is nothing short of murderous treason, and if they have what they say they have, our conversations on 9/11 are about to take an ever-more treacherous turn.
Until then, Richard Clarke has started another public debate on 9/11. Somehow, that should come as no surprise to anyone.
Editor’s Note: Below is the referenced comment, posted August 17, 2011.
I am one of the filmmakers who conducted the intvw with Clarke and leaked it to Phil Shenon for his piece. You have obviously conducted a lot of research into this subject before you concluded that there were “no facts to [Clarke's] outrageous charge.” That exhaustive research did not seem to include watching the 13-minute intvw with Clarke himself, which we made available the same night as Shenon’s Daily Beast article and has received 17,000 views: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
An oversight to your otherwise careful and thorough attention to detail, I am sure.
I can assure you that a good number of former gov’t officials from various agencies have been coming to us to back up Clarke’s basic assertions, providing various details and first-person accounts that make clear that Clarke is not simply a “conspiracy theorist.” All will be released on our web site, SecrecyKills.com, on 9.11.11 (free of charge, by the way, in case you think we are hucksters motivated by greed).