So they had NO IDEA ........check the dates

[Twist_U_Up]

[hack89]

1. Judging by the dates,,,

this seems to be pretty incriminating for the Clinton administration. Or was there some other point you were trying to make?

[mrgerbik]

3. who cares who

it incriminates. IMHO, partisan issues are a distraction and not worthy of serious debate.

[hack89]

4. So you will at least entertain the idea that Clinton was involved in 911?

it would make sense considering how long it would take to plan such an attack. I have always thought that the "non-partisan" 911 commission was equally interested in covering Democrat asses as much as Republican.

[mrgerbik]

5. yes

I really wouldn't try and speculate how a network of people would function under our current political landscape, but there is ample evidence dating back to the inception of the US republic that outside interests have always sought to control government mainly through the control money and ideology.

This would mean any party that would be elected would sit somewhat in or underneath this power grid.

Just my take.

[Make7]

2. The World Trade Center was bombed in 1993.

Does it surprise you that some people in the government thought it still might be a target 4 to 7 years after that bombing?

- Make7

[petgoat]

6. The point is that the Bush administration should have known

what everyone else had known since 1993: the WTC was a target.

[Grateful for Hope]

7. Or

they shouldn't have lied about not knowing "No one could have predicted that planes would be flown into the twin towers".

Just like:

"No one could have predicted that the levees would break".

[Make7]

10. No, they shouldn't have lied, and it was painfully obvious that they were.

They have built up quite a track track record of lying - even more so than past administrations.

- Make7

[Make7]

8. August 6, 2001 PDB

The World Trade Center was mentioned in the first paragraph of the August 6, 2001 PDB:

Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf

- Make7

[petgoat]

9. The WTC was also mentioned as a possible target for

hijacked airliners by al Qaeda's Abdul Hakim Murad in 1995.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-1741

[Make7]

11. I think the fact that there were warnings has been well established. n/t

[hack89]

12. The entire point many of us have been making for a long time

is that the real crime of the Bush administration was that through incompetence and negligence, warnings like these were ignored.

[petgoat]

13. Given the great benefits that accrued to the Bush regime

from 9/11, the assumption that its failure to prevent the attacks was a matter
of incompetence would appear to be illogical. They wanted a New Pearl Harbor,
and in 9/11 they got it.

That the CIA failed to kill Osama when Clinton ordered him killed, that the CIA
met with Osama in Dubai in 7/01, that Osama delivered himself into the custody of
the Pakistani military on 9/10/01, that the US military allowed him to escape
from Tora Bora in 12/01, that Bush has no interest in finding him and Porter
Goss said the CIA had no plans to get him even though they had an excellent
idea of where he was.... all suggest a degree of involvement that goes beyond
passivity.

[Jazz2006]

14. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations are to blame...

because they had warnings that they failed to act upon.

But I don't believe that either of them were actually, proactively involved in what happened on Sept. 11/01.

The * admin didn't have enough time to get it together; and the Clinton admin, despite its greater knowledge and opportunity, was too preoccupied to get it together.