>there is an argument to be made for this. There was a possibly
>legitimate fear of retaliation. Saudis are at least nominally US
>allies, disregarding for a moment the personal links. As a country,
>the US would probably prefer not to piss off Saudi Arabia (the
>country).
>
>Against this weigh the possiblity of getting information and the
>question of why these particular Saudis deserve special treatment when
>other Saudis were being interned. There is the suspicion that it may
>have been a matter of past personal financial favors. I have not had a
>chance to check out the footnotes on these assertions, so I am for the
>moment simply saying that my mind has changed on the matter of the
>flights in restricted airspace from not sure to yes, probably did
>happen.
>
>Dana
I have read several articles on this subject. There seems to be consensus
that the flight did happen. The disagreement is over who authorized the
flight. Why it is important who actually authorized the flight is a
semi-mystery to me. I've read arguments that range from national security
to American's unable to receive proper medical treatment because their
transplant heart was grounded. But in the big picture, it's one more
annoyance and hindrance on top of many inconveniences that all Americans
were forced to endure.
As for Clarks' "confession", and I use the term loosely, it is reasonable
to question the validity considering the situation. Doesn't mean that he
is lying but he is making a claim that is practically un-confirmable if all
parties involved actually wanted it that way. The texts that I have read
seems to imply that Clarke wasn't the one that authorized the
flight. Doesn't necessarily mean he was covering for Bush either. Could
have been a career move where he claims more responsibility then he
actually had or is courting favor with the Saudis. I don't know. Either
way, I think this is not an important issue.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
