Replies

It was either a failure to communicate intelligence to and/or receive intelligence by the decision makers OR the decision makers (Bush,Blair,etc)got the information and were either incompetent (politically correct socialist thinking and protect the Saudi business deals?) or they let it happen on purpose to unite the world in a war on terrorism, a world which they did not think would go along unless there were a cataclismic event like 9/11 (Pearl Harbor/Roosevelt scenario).

I think composite answers are required in most every situation. Here, I think:

A) We have a beauracracy that has proven to be criminally inept. (30%)

B) We have rogue (treasonous) elements of our government who occasionally are able to squelch vital functions (20%)

C) We have an improper risk/value weighting going on, global interests and global power are being overweighted and defense of liberties, freedom against 'police state neccessities' are being underweighted. (30%)

D) We have foriegn policy concerns/reforms that are not being delt with (20%)

Really, its the same-ole, same-ole: "Ouch! Whoopsie, sorry about that. We're really trying to be competant, just give us a little more power and it wont happen again"

Easier for them, harder for us. Is the axiom they use.

Your reply #18 is an insighful, balanced, stable and good analysis and a substantive contribution and improvement to my reply #11.

Thank You.

Your reply #18 is an example of a high quality and classy reply.

Reply #18 is greatly superior to reply #13.