The President is an end-user of intelligence. That means that it's not his job to collect, colate, and analyze data. It is his job to act. He cannot act if he's not given the correct information.

The document under discussion is not an analysis. An analysis would look like a forecast, not the laundry list presented.

Excuse us, why didn't you just try to prevent hijackings in general instead of taking a month's vacation in Texas after being warned in August of 2001, for the umpteenth time, that terrorists planned to hijack airplanes in the near future?

I believe they did try to prevent hijackings in general.

In her testimony, Rice mentioned, while tap-dancing around the issue of state support for 9/11, how sophisticated the attacks were.

Now, I'm not no terrorist mastermind or nuthin, but I don't think there's anything really that sophisticated about taking over an aircraft with knives, and flying them into various targets. Rice isn't some yokel, so adds weight to my belief that the 9/11 attack involved much more than 19 assholes with boxcutters. Much more.

For instance: After the rash of hijackings in the 1970s, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA - now DARPA) supposedly came up with electronic countermeasures against hijackers. Give this a moment's thought.

***

Obviously, the solution is to take control of the aircraft from the outside. That way, any threat of the hijacker's is rendered futile.

I believe that the 9/11 hijackers, among other things, were able to defeat this system. I also beleive that it may account for the circuituous path of a couple of the hijacked flights, particularly AA 11 and UA 175. That the hijackers were able to disable the planes' transponders is suggestive of other capabilities.