> 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.