According to Newsweek the blistering testimony of Richard Clarke suggests as much, even though he does not actually say it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4594652/
Did the Bush regime let the attacks happen, knowing that they were coming? After all did Mossad not have knowledege of them beforehand, and had passed this info onto the US administration?
His claim is that Bush & co were negligent in their underestimation of Al Qaeda, not that they had specific foreknowledge of an attack which they "allowed to happen". There's quite a difference there Malik. It's quite obvious at this point that there was negligence involved at many levels.
I wonder what you (and the rest of the muslim world for that matter) what have thought/said if Bush had acted on Clark's "proposals for immediate, aggressive actions against bin Laden" earlier in 2001?
Furthermore, why would mossad have told the US administration about the attacks? The way the popular conspiracy goes in your circles, I thought that they did it themselves, or and the very least would NOT want it to be prevented. Remember, it's them "who benefitted", and "where's the proofs" that Bin Laden was behind it?
Of course the attacks could of been prevented.
All America had to do was change it's Foreign Policy!
the proponenets of the "bush knew" theory remind me of the proponenets of the 'roosevelt knew" theory regarding pearl harbor.
just as in 1941 an intel service can see millions of intercepts,but do you have an inkling of what they mean in totality.just as in 1941,it was clear that war was being conducted against the US.there had already been one attack aimed at bringing down the WTC. Now the truth is that after
almost 50 years of the cold war,people did not want to believe that america was not going to continue in a state of deep peace.It was not something that americans were used to so, it would follow that any reality that would diturb this deep peace was not palatable to look at.
It is also true that the govt. had a number of years to prepare for this
newest reality and, it did through the expansion of FEMA,etc.
I would defy any person stating to have direct knowledge of any intel service having specific knowledge of these attack beforehand to simply
come foreward with that information.You may know that SOMETHING
will happen but, to predicte the time and ,place and, methodology of the thing is preposterous.No offense is meant to any of those who fancy themselves intel specialists but,rethink this one.Garcia.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Stu: *
**His claim is that Bush & co were negligent in their underestimation of Al Qaeda, not that they had specific foreknowledge of an attack which they "allowed to happen". There's quite a difference there Malik. It's quite obvious at this point that there was negligence involved at many levels.*
[/QUOTE]
Hello Stu... :)
Do you think the Bush regime should apologise to the American people like Clarke has?
[QUOTE]
Do you think the Bush regime should apologise to the American people like Clarke has?
[/QUOTE]
Frankly, yes.
Hello Stu...
Why so frank now? You people created a unfrankness-styled monster with your lack of frankness in the near past.
Franks a bunch and enjoy his second term.
firstly Thap, go frank yourself.
Now let me clarify further, for those who obviously aren't paying attention, that I think Bush should apologize for underestimating islamic extremism as a threat before 9-11 (as Clarke did). I'm quite happy with the way he's dealt w/it since then. While I may have been against attacking Iraq beforehand, his rationale that the war was necessary to bring things to a head -- and defeat the threat -- more quickly makes sense. I can respect that, why drag things out?
Exact-a-mundo Stu.. In fact Clinton should apologize as well for letting OBL go through his fingers as well.
What a lot of folks suffer from is selective reading. :)
I am frankly also glad the way the war has gone on since 9/11. With important contributions from friends like Pakistan who have done a good job till date fighting islamic extremism. Have to keep the screw on tight...
yes the attacks could have been prevented if usa would have been a just super power not a baised one.
it still can prevent future horrors .
Stu
You should also be willing to accept the quick and decisive way the 9/11 attack was orchestrated. Otherwise America would be even more hell bent in its' exetremist Foreign Policy upsurge. As far as the other side is concerened, their War is also going pretty well.
Attacking Iraq and rationale! What has the U.S. achieved apart from anarchy, mass murder, and more danger in the world. Facts please, no fiction.
Maybe you should apologise for being so Bushlike...... I mean Umareekan.
[QUOTE]
What has the U.S. achieved apart from anarchy, mass murder, and more danger in the world. Facts please, no fiction.
[/QUOTE]
The important facts are:
1) the US has a significant military presence in the middle east -- the enemy's "backyard".
2) nations around the world are intensely focused on fighting and defeating islamic extremism, including every single western nation, Pakistan, KSA, India, Russia, China etc...
3) Islamic extremists in Iraq are having more success killing Iraqi muslims than anyone else
4) Because of #3, the Islamic extremists are less liked in Iraq than the US, probably even less than Saddam
Furthermore, IMHO, the anger at the US is focused directly on the Bush administration and will dissapate for the most part after he is out of office. That may happen this year. The war on terror will continue however, until the threat is completely eliminated.
5) there have been no further attacks on American soil.