Robert Naiman corrects me: > This is a misleading subject line. Richard Clarke's allegation is not > that the CIA knew about 9/11 before it took place, but that 1) the CIA > knew that two people known to be Al Qaeda agents were in the country > but did not tell the FBI and these two people went on to become 9/11 > hijackers (this part is already established in the public record, the > CIA has copped to it) and 2) the reason that the CIA did not tell the > FBI was that it hoped to turn the two Al Qaeda agents to work for the > U.S. (this part is the new allegation - the allegation is not new, > what is new is that Richard Clarke has given voice to it, although he > concedes that it is speculation/inference on his part, he does not > have any new evidence to support the allegation; he simply has now > stated that he believes that this is the most plausible explanation > for the CIA's failure to inform the FBI.)
I stand corrected. Still, as parsed by Robert, the claim -- if substantiated -- is damning. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
