Richard Clarke = Limited Hangout

[stickdog]

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/nation/9021478.htm

Clarke took issue with some elements of filmmaker Michael Moore's new documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11," which depicts how the Bush administration allowed Saudi nationals and members of Osama bin Laden's family to leave the United States days after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Clarke said he thought the Saudi government was "perfectly justified" in wanting its citizens to leave the United States out of fears of "vigilantism" by Americans.

The Saudis were not allowed to leave until the FBI cleared them of posing any danger and having knowledge of Osama bin Laden's whereabouts, Clarke said.

Making the incident a big part of the movie was a mistake, said Clarke, who added that he agrees with many things Moore stands for.

[madrchsod]

1. interesting

some poor guy got ripped to shreds today by posting something about moores problem with this very thing clarke just said. it was brutal and many messages were deleted and it was finally locked....it was down right viscous

[JI7]

3. is there a link for that

[stickdog]

5. Does Clarke's limited hangout make what happened right?

Sorry, but it sure as fuck doesn't.

[JI7]

2. i can understand fear of "vigilantism" by americans

but i think it would have been better if they had been moved to somewhere like canada or just other protective custody in the united states until they could be questioned and then allowed to leave.

[jdj]

4. How could they have possibly cleared them in 48 hrs.

I'm disappointed in Clark, I mean, maybe they are justified, but hell, what about a CIA safehouse or the witness protection program or something like that.

As vehement as he is in the rest of this interview (in quotes), this statement, which is not in quotes, seems out of place. I'd like to read the actual quote.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. The argument from the POV of governments makes sense

it is known as quid pro quo, and he has made it before, so he has not been inconsistent here.

That said, from the POV of investigating the attack, he is wrong,
but I understand why.

When the Saudi Interior Ministry told Americans less than two months ago that they could no longer protect them, that was the payment for this quid pro quo, by the way.

[jdj]

8. Theoretically, yes, realistically, no.

They had to have had an estimated death toll by then. It wasn't about gov't, it was about the global aristocracy.

And like I said, I'd want to see the original quote, Clarke is paraphrased here, and these comments are inconsistent with a) the rest of the interview, and b) all the other interviews I have read in which he denied authorizing this and made clear it wasn't his call. I don't know why he would change his position on this, I have read at least 3 other interviews with him on this and he had a different attitude.

[Eric J in MN]

7. The US govt. could have provided security for Saudis here who

The US govt. could have provided security for Saudis here who requested it, instead of helping them to leave before intensive questioning.

[moondust]

9. Nevertheless,

there were no doubt other Saudis, some perhaps with the name bin Laden, and a lot of other darker-skinned folks who feared and in some cases were victimized by the same vigilantism but received no special treatment. Suppose they wouldn't have jumped at the chance to be spirited away to safety? Osama's family could just as easily have checked into a hotel under an assumed name with or without FBI protection. They received special treatment because of who they were pals with.