There is of course, another angle to all of this.

The much publicised PDB was entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US". Condi Rice has called this a 'historical document', although the title suggests it more to be prophetic one (unless you read 'Determined' as implying the past tense); one containing evidence from various sources, to support it being titled thus.
Considering that George W. may not have read this document at the time, and that the Bush administration's view (as testified to by Dr. Rice) was that they considered Bin Laden's determination to strike in the US, as 'old news' somehow, indicates to me at least, not so much a non-joining-of-dots excercise, as a disturbing oversight with regard to something as serious, and as fundamental as National Security.
To claim that nowhere was it mentioned that planes would be used as weapons and flown into buildings on September 11, is far from the point. To suggest that they would needed to have that kind of information in black and white is a preposterous assertion, and to offer it as some sort of an excuse, is not so much a reflection on the Intelligence services, as on the people who are charged with interpreting that intelligence.

Further up the thread a bit, Teribus reminded us of the diligence of a Customs official in uncovering the 'Super Gun' affair, and Strick told of the perceptive border guard who foiled the Millenium bomb plot.
Nobody had told those people what to expect when they clocked into work that day; they were just 'doing their job'. A job, incidentally, that would have been in extreme jeopardy were it to be suggested they had been inattentive in any way, if the items concerned had have evaded detection at that point. If your mind is on your job, you look for everything. If you are someone with appropriate authority, you tighten airport security, and employ a few more G men. And most of all, you keep on top of the situation. This is not what is known as 20/20 hindsight. It is common-sense. And if it hadn't been an ongoing policy of successive US administrations, well then, none of them had their eyes on the ball, and they all are truly to blame.

But the person in ultimate charge at the minute is George W. Bush. He was very much in charge on August 6th 2001, also. This man, however, delegates much of what he does, which presumably affords him the luxury of being able to conduct the little he does actually seem to assume responsiblity for, from a more relaxed location; the Ranch, being a place in point, and he comes across as being all brawn and little brain in his public utterances. A person like George W. Bush is used to getting his own way (a quality to be admired, perhaps, in a benevolent leader), but if you couple that with the almost megalomaniacal picture, previously entirely credible people have painted of him, one would be forgiven for expressing the old adage that there is no smoke without fire.

I was relieved to see, though, that he got John Negroponte's name right when he introduced him to the press as the new Ambassador to Iraq, recently. In a recent Q/A session, he called his present representative there, Jerry (Gerry?) Bremer. It is this lackadaisicalness as far as attention to detail is concerned that worries me, frankly. His Reaganesque-reminiscent short term memory faculty never ceases to depress me, and if his selective inarticulateness is anything to go by, his being lost for words at such important times gives one the impression of someone who is more making it up as he goes along, than of someone with a long-term plan in mind.
The contention that he is, and has been on top of things since the beginning of his Presidency, doesn't hold much water, in my opinion. Too many

'revelations' have been made, for my liking, which point to gross incompetancy with respect to his leadership skills, and there are, at present, too many evaded questions still hanging in mid-air. Too much beating around the bush.

Jim