And wholesale US intelligence failed also, either that or they kept the intelligence to themselves.

Possibly we knew but couldn't risk warning DGSE and compromising our sources.

which is sickening, and i would also question the use of these sources, will they only be placed at risk if the target is the US, or perhaps only when it is US VIPs on US soil. What if they are never to be at risk? Where is their value?

Or a fairly simple, and unfortunately satisfying, explanation; this attack is an official action intended to provide a political climate conducive to power consolidation.

Too bad it smells like a conspiracy theory.

Too bad people still watch TV and get dog trained/brainwashed to stop thinking after hearing phrases like "conspiracy theory".

why is that any more likely than it being a home grown terrorist attack? But my point stands, the US may well have had prior knowledge but want the french onside for future anti-terror wars, if that isnt the case then the millions or billions spent on intelligence gathering since 2001 has been a complete waste.

I agree but several attacks were foiled as well this year

Edit for source: http://www.dw.com/en/france-arrests-islamic-state-supporter-...

Such as?

Everything you don't hear about.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That also applies to your argument.