FBI knew attack was coming by June/July 2001

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

With all of the Bush administrations "shenanigans" coming out, I'm beginning to wonder if they weren't looking for something like this to happen all along.

So, this makes me wonder, did Bush let it happen?

Tell me what you think, and why.

[Hamel]

I'm going to wait for more evidence before I declare LIHOP.

[The Albino Raven]

I don't know what I think really happened, but we as a people aren't going to find out any time soon.

[Peregrin Toker]

This is most likely a result of sheer incompetence.


Bush doesn't seem like the kind of politician who is malevolently indifferent to the lives of his loyal citizens. (the lives of foreigners, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter) And while Bush apparently is extremely easy to manipulate, I don't think you could manipulate any statesman to let such a terrorist attack happen.

[Glocksman]

Like any other government agency, the FBI is a bureaucracy and information takes time to percolate its way to the top.


Unless there is incontrovertible evidence to prove Bush did let it happen, this is in the same class as the old charges that FDR knew about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor and let it go forward.

Speaking of which, war warnings did arrive at Pearl. Too bad they arrived while the attack was in progress.

Bureaucratic bungling is nothing new.

[Tsyroc]

This is most likely a result of sheer incompetence.

That's usually the best and easiest answer when people are involved. If you include lazziness as part of incompentence you definately have it covered.

[Sarevok]

Bush did not intentionaly let the September 11 attacks happen. It was a combination of miscommnunications and incompetence that failed to prevent the terrorist attacks.

[Howedar]

Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence. It is infinitely more plausible that bureaucracy allowed the WTC attacks to happen than an Evil Neocon Conspiracy (TM).

[Slartibartfast]

After all the shit he's done, I'd say that he's not above doing it.

Either case, I haven't seen any evidence for or against.

[Gandalf]

Even if Yellow allert had been set, could it have helped?

[The Kernel]

Until I see solid evidence of knowledge, I'm not going to take any of these claims seriously. Sorry, but acusing the President of something like this requires an increadible amount of proof, and this isn't it.

[Mayabird]

I doubt Bush would intentionally let a terrorist attack hit America for any reason. He's an idiot for sure, but all of his stupid Christian fundie right-wing agenda crap is because somewhere in that tiny deluded mind of his he thinks he's doing a good thing. He won't intentionally do anything he thinks is wrong (but of course there lies the problem).

[HemlockGrey]

I'd like to hear from the people who said he let it happen.

I think it was very avoidable, and that under a more competant Administration it could have been averted. However, while it's plainly obvious that Bush and his associates seized upon 9/11 to advance their own political agenda, I very much doubt they actively brought it about or allowed it to go through knowingly.

[RedImperator]

You're going to need something better than this to convince me the President of the United States committed 3000 counts of negligent homicide.

[SirNitram]

I vote he's dangerously stupid as opposed to dangerously ruthless. If he wanted to make sure it happened, he'd have acted in some way that would appear to defeat terrorism while still allowing attacks. Instead we just have the actions of a man stupidly obsessed with his missile defense and corporate sponsors.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Never Attribute to Malice What Can Be Adequately Explained By Incompetence.


It was avoidable, it wasn't avoided, but it wasn't done on purpose.

[Durandal]

I can't see Bush letting it happen. He likes to throw civil rights to the wind, but he'd never go along with a plan that involved the slaughter of 3000 Americans.

[Montcalm]

I can't see Bush letting it happen. He likes to throw civil rights to the wind, but he'd never go along with a plan that involved the slaughter of 3000 Americans.

He probably knew and may have been advised on not doing anything to prevent it,cause if the enemy find out that you know what they plan,well......

[Invader ZIm]

Oh please...

We could easily claim that 911 could have been prevented by the Florida, Oklahoma, and Maryland State Troopers. Each and every time these organizations pulled over some of the Hijackers before 911 they failed to check with INS. A quick check would have shown at at least five of the men (and at least 3 of the pilots in the plot) where in country on expired visas.

[RedImperator]

I can't see Bush letting it happen. He likes to throw civil rights to the wind, but he'd never go along with a plan that involved the slaughter of 3000 Americans.

He probably knew and may have been advised on not doing anything to prevent it,cause if the enemy find out that you know what they plan,well......

That's asinine. If there's ever a time to reveal that you've compromised their communications or organization, it's to PREVENT KAMAKAZIE ATTACKS ON SKYSCRAPERS.

Don't forget, conspiracy theorists, we got off light compared to how bad September 11 could have been--if the planes had hit the WTC two hours later, those buildings would have had 10,000 people in them, and there was no way to know in advance the passengers on Flight 93 were going to revolt, which means that if you know about the plan in advance and do nothing, you're basically sacrificing the White House or the Capitol. Not to mention, the hijackers picked the one side of the Pentagon that had been armored against truck bombs--if they'd hit the other side, they could have done more damage to the building and killed Donald Rumsfeld while they were at it. If you claim Bush knew it was going to happen, you're claiming that Bush was willing to sacrifice 10,000 people, members of his own cabinet, and his own damn house (including God knows how many members of his own staff) for his own political agenda.

[Ma Deuce]

there was no way to know in advance the passengers on Flight 93 were going to revolt, which means that if you know about the plan in advance and do nothing, you're basically sacrificing the White House or the Capitol..

IIRC, there was already an F-16 en route to intercept flight 93 with orders to shoot it down before it reached it's target. Flight 93 would not have reached Washington DC under any circumstances...

[Durandal]

I can't see Bush letting it happen. He likes to throw civil rights to the wind, but he'd never go along with a plan that involved the slaughter of 3000 Americans.

He probably knew and may have been advised on not doing anything to prevent it,cause if the enemy find out that you know what they plan,well......

I knew you were completely worthless, but now I'm thinking you might be completely stupid. Say what you will about Bush, but he's not some modern-day Hitler, and he would never have gone along with it. He could've had all the advisers in the world telling him to sit by and do nothing, but at the end of the day, he's the fucking president, and he would've ordered that something be done to prevent the attacks. It's simply not in his character to sacrifice thousands of civilians for his political agenda (soldiers he has no problem throwing into the meat grinder, though).

[Darth Wong]

So, this makes me wonder, did Bush let it happen?

Of course Bush let it happen, but not deliberately. This was negligence causing death, but not negligent homicide. There's a difference.

[Mr. Sinister]

My dad thinks that Bush not only allowed the 9-11 attacks, he actually caused them. Then again, it wouldn’t surprise me if he thought that Bush was behind the AIDS epidemic in Africa, that he hunts migrant workers on his ranch in Texas, and that he feeds infants to the giant alligator in the White House basement.

As for me, I have no love for Bush what so ever. But I simply can’t believe that any elected official, let alone the President, would allow over 3,000 people to die simply to further some political agenda. Maybe I’m just naïve.

[Darth Wong]

My dad thinks that Bush not only allowed the 9-11 attacks, he actually caused them. Then again, it wouldn’t surprise me if he thought that Bush was behind the AIDS epidemic in Africa, that he hunts migrant workers on his ranch in Texas, and that he feeds infants to the giant alligator in the White House basement.

As for me, I have no love for Bush what so ever. But I simply can’t believe that any elected official, let alone the President, would allow over 3,000 people to die simply to further some political agenda. Maybe I’m just naïve.

Well, he wouldn't allow them to die violently and all at one time, anyway. Elected officials basically allow tens of thousands to die as a result of drunk driving by failing to enact harsher penalties for drunk drivers who haven't killed someone yet. The same could be said of various arguments against environmental regulations, in which economics are weighed against human lives, birth defects, etc. But a spectacular and violent killing of thousands of people at once would not be accepted.