"obcboatSPLINTER@hotmail.com" <obcboat@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1140712200.360390.16130@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>
Clarke told us the strike was called off because the intelligence was> dubious, and it seemed to him as if the CIA was presenting an option to> attack America's best counterterrorism ally in the Gulf (the UAE)
. Documentary> evidence at the time shows that on February 10th Clarke detailed to> Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick the intelligence> placing UBL in the camp, informed him that DOD might be in a position> to fire the next morning, and added that General Shelton was looking at> other options that might be ready the following week. Clarke had just> returned from a visit to the UAE, working on counterterrorism> cooperation and following up on a May 1998 UAE agreement to buy F-16> aircraft from the United States.>
On February 10th, Clarke reported that a top UAE official had> vehemently denied that high-level UAE officials were in Afghanistan.> Evidence subsequently confirmed that high-level UAE officials had been> there.
So why was Richard Clarke defending the UAE royal family's presence in Afghanistan? Was Clinton/Clarke wrong about the UAE in 1998 and 1999? And is the current administration also wrong?
Most of the reports that I have read state that the UAE royal family were trying to pursuade the Taliban to allow the extradition of bin Laden from Afghanistan.
Two administrations have stated that the UAE is an important partner in the war on terror.
You don't have to convince me that they were complicit in 9/11. Hell, I think every country in the Middle East ought to be nuked. But why has two separate administrations listed the UAE as one of the "good guys"?
