lex parsimoniae  "When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities" . William of Ockham

In other words, Cenk is 100% correct: to many moving parts.

Starting from the top

 THAT'S THE WAY THE MILITARY OPERATES. It only takes ONE person at the top to set such plans into motion.

How is that different from any hierarchical organization?

No one else needs to know and why would they suyspect anything.

An operation that involves multiple services in numerous subordinate commands would require extensive coordination.

Questions are asked, operation orders are generated, exercises are briefed and rehearsed. Only in the movies does the military jump up and "go do it"

And the  military, even more than the Bushco bureaucracy, CARRIES OUT ORDERS WITHOUT QUESTION. 

You watch to many movies.

True, the US military  follows orders, but the commissioned and  non-commissioned officers are under no obligation to follow illegal orders, particularly the execution of offensive operations within the territory of the US .

Furthermore the make up of the military does not change other than the political appointees from administration to administration.

The assumption that the forces of the US military are mindless GI Joe automatons does a disservice to the men and women in uniform.

To assume that the military would sit back and execute an attack on the US is ludicrous at the extreme.

Various exercises and scenarios are ordered routinely.

The military does execute numerous exercises.

None I can assure you involve civilian air space or interaction in cites and towns other than civil defense and disaster exercises that are organized and coordinated by nonmilitary agencies like FEMA,DOH DOE and other agencies.

 "And when it somes to the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is bigger and better funded that all other intelligence agencies put together"

The DIA is primarily concerned with order of battle, strengths and capabilities.

They spend the largest amount simply because they have numerous satellites and terrestrial sensor systems that collect photo and signals intelligence to

• evaluate capabilities of equipment and weapons systems
  
• locate and track military forces from nations of interest.  
• monitor technological development nations of interest

Come on, this really isn't that hard.

This passage is instructive on the use of intelligence...its political use:

Comparing Iraq with the Soviet Union is instructive however. The Russians never were ten feet tall as the CIA made them out to be, and Iraq was a crippled midget, contrary to the fearsome portrait of neoconservative propaganda.

Bush dismissed Islamic terrorists like Clinton did, and Bush I, Reagan and Carter and the presidents before them did.

He was more concerned with cutting taxes than some fringe jihadist groups.

They were Arabs after all, traditionally disorganized, disloyal to their causes and mistakenly though to be powerless. Fanatical leaders since the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in the 30's have been issuing calls for jihad against the west, or at least certain countries in the west. Please.

What we have here is an administration who made a decision politically safe decision to continue to "monitor" the situation rather than act, an administration that did not want anything to distract for their economic agenda.An administration that was banking on the 'peace dividend enjoyed by Clinton to allow more tax reductions. The last thing they wanted was a "war" of any kind.

Recall that Bush I was caught flat footed, just like his son was by 9-11, by Iraq. Iraq had been rattling the sword and moving troops for weeks prior to invading Kuwait.

Bush, as President, made a judgment call: not to act. In doing so, he mistook intelligence from his agencies (satellite imagery) for disinformation (bluffing) and mistook misinformation from foreign sources (Shevardnadze, Mubarak) for intelligence.

The CIA and DIA had issued warning about the troop movements and build ups. Bush choose to "monitor"the situation and at the urging of the Joint Chiefs, ordered a carrier battle group to the gulf just before the invasion, They arrived 3 days later.

After the 9-11 attack, when it was apparent that the intelligence folks weren't kidding this time,the Bushies circled the wagons and "got their stories" coordinated.

Bad intell! was the battle cry..our "intell doesnt share information..blah blah blah" just like the findings about the Iraq Invasion of Kuwait during the  Bush I administration.

It is what it is...nothing more .

I'll leave you with one last point. Systems tend to fail from neglect or loss of focus rather than succeed. Homeland security prior to 9-11was joke. 9-11 is a shining example of multiple failures or neglect leading to catastrophic consequences.