RandFan said:
I have since stated that there are 3 options. So yes, my original query is a false dillema but I have modified it since.
The problem exists for those who want to have their cake and eat it to. Clarke was telling the truth when he said A but lying when he said B. I have gone on record saying it is likely that he was always telling the truth.
I think he was economising with the truth on one issue where he thought the right thing was done, or where he was not prepared to rock a particular boat, and telling the truth about other things he thought were done badly. See below.
Beyond Clarke is their reason to find conspiracy/duplicity/coverup in letting the planes leave?
Just in general, I find it hard to believe that the FBI was so on the ball that 48 hours after the planes hit the buildings they were certain that none of 140-odd important Saudis in the USA knew anything at all that was relevant. I'm not saying that they should have been locked up or anything, but even in a routine murder inquiry I understand that people who might turn out to hold relevant information are asked not to go anywhere without notifying the police, let alone leave the country altogether. When over three thousand people were murdered, it seems on the face of it that anyone related to the likely principal planner should have been asked to stay in the USA at least for a week or two until they had been comprehensively cleared.
I'm not trying to pretend I'm an expert when it comes to investigating things like 9/11. But it still seems strange that as early as September 13 the FBI were willing to say "Look, there is absolutely no possibility that any of these guys were involved. It simply will not turn out to be the case that they were involved in the shorting of airline stocks, or that they received a mobile phone call from someone who we later find out assisted the hijackers, or anything like that. Or if we do find out such a thing, they won't have done a runner. We know it won't happen".
I think that's pretty odd. So what the heck were people actually thinking?
I remember that allegations were aired within the mainstream media that Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, and Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz were linked with Al Qaeda and bumped off as a consequence. (Obviously I had to google for their names, but I remembered the general circumstances). Salman was one of the guys on the controversial flights.
So the theory that the Saudis were allowed to go for political reasons, on the understanding that anyone involved in the hijackings was going to get it from the CIA or the Saudi government later, is mildly tinfoily but far from absurd. No one ever accused the Saudi government of playing softball, and the USA is explicitly back in the business of assasinating people. Neither goverment wants the public to link Saudi Arabia with 9/11 too strongly, so it's in both their interests to deal with Saudi conspirators covertly rather than through the courts.
You could spin that story to paint the US government as evil or to paint the US government as smart players. It's your choice.