It's damning to the CIA, who are supposed to be big liars anyway. Not a big deal, IMO. Bad for Tenet and a few cronies, if anyone.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Julio Huato <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
