Oh, they were doing their jobs. I have no doubt that the employees of those agencies were going about their business, attending staff meetings and writing memos. But apparently their job descriptions did not include stopping an attack such as happened on 11 September 2001.
And why should they? Such an attack had never happened before. The plan was simple and unexpected. It did not require sophisticated technology or split-second timing, just an understanding of human nature and our pre-9/11 airport security procedures.
One more thing. You seem to think it incredible that our intelligence agencies could have been fooled. Remember, however, that these same intelligence agencies assured the Clinton and Bush Administrations and the Congress that that Saddam had large stocks of chemical and biological weapons, and that he was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Everyone thought that the intelligence was solid. ("Slam dunk" was how the Director of Central Intelligence put it.) Apparently, fooling the CIA is not so difficult.
You mean there aren't any WMDs in Iraq?
But . . but . . but . .
What am I to make of all the threads on FreeRepublic which say there are, and FReepers who claim the Bush administration is either a) waiting for the proper time to spring it on the opposition for political gain, or b) keeping it under wraps so terrorists won't go looking for what wasn't found and disposed of?
Is it possible (not to mention desirable) to keep an open mind about both the veracity and finality of government reports on subjects with potentially earth-shaking consequences such as these? I think it is.
And one does not need to be a "truther" to be skeptical of the official government line. Their record is far from flawless.