I think another question to ask is what do people mean by "letting it happen."
I don't think there is evidence that the specific "it" was known (meaning the specific plan of hijacking 4 planes and attempting to crash them into targets)
but we do know that warnings of
an attack were given. I would still like to see all the PDBs which haven't been released.
Kurt Eichenwald's op-ed contained disturbing information:
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2012/12/neoconservative-deviousness-put-us-at.html
I think this didn't get the coverage and discussion it deserved: "the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon
were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory,
Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat."
That's a big problem. As I have pointed out at my blog: You are not going to get these men to say, "Yeah, we sat back, ignored the warnings, so that when an attack happened we could use it as a pretext for our agenda to attack Iraq." BUT their excuses for why the President should ignore the warnings he was being given are so contrived and self-serving that it basically exposes what they were up to.
