If you have time, I'd very much appreciate a link to the comment that America needs another Pearl Harbour, as I'd like to read the article.
As for it being important to Bush to protect the Saudis, I've never read such anti-Saudi material coming from any administration before. Bush, unlike previous presidents, has put the Saudis firmly on notice that their days of working both sides are numbered.
Sarah
At 2:52 PM -0800 01/17/2003, Kent Southard wrote:
5. As for 'Americans having something to do with 9/11' - I look at facts such as John Ashcroft, who had the USA-Patriot Act all ready to go when the attack came; Ashcroft stopped flying commercial at the end of July due to a 'threat assessment.' Bush himself got out of town for the whole next month, as did Cheney. It's fairly inexplicable that while CIA Director Tenet was distraught with fear of an attack, was giving briefings, etc., that the Bush administration had still not put a priority for the NSC to translate transmissions from Al Qaeda and the Taliban - so when the messages came thru that basically said 'Tomorrow's the big one!' they sat without attention. And look at the FBI warnings that were not just ignored, but actively subverted. The supervisor who cut off Cowley's investigation just got promoted and an award, for pete's sake. If it's not all a matter of criminal intent, that they let it happen on purpose, then it's certainly a matter of criminal negligence. And as John O'Neill, the FBI counter-terrorism chief who quit to die at the WTC said, 'It all goes back to the Saudi's, and while protecting the Saudi's was important in every administration, it became much more so with Bush.'
