New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Bold Admission

trapdoor

Governor
They did. It's not like Al Qaeda wasn't trying to attack America in the Clinton years. They just weren't succeeding, at least within the US itself. The Clinton team was serious about taking on that threat. Clinton had regular principals meetings to constantly bring disparate strands of evidence together, and to challenge his top people to do more. There's a reason that a Republican like Clarke speaks so well about his efforts. And Clinton also worked to keep al Qaeda on the defensive, with strikes on al Qaeda camps.
Your timeline ignores the actions of the actual people who did 9/11 -- who would have gone forward with their plan if Gore had won in 2000, just as much as they did when Bush won. Clinton didn't prevent 9/11 -- the entire thing was organized on his watch.

As you know, Clinton did try to take Bin Laden out, and the treacherous conservatives thrashed him for it, insisting that he was just trying to distract from the fact he got a blowjob. You know perfectly well that he didn't intentionally hit empty fields and aspirin factories. He hit targets that the intelligence apparatus and military told him were terrorist assets or possible locations of Bin Laden.
I know he was offered the chance to and turned it down. No one thought those missiles were going to do anything, which they of course did not (save for destroying pain killers).

Exactly. Clinton kept us safe from a 9/11-type attack for eight long years and Bush couldn't even do so for seven months.
Blather.

I'd say about 30% brainless, plus 5% evil, plus another 5% that's both brainless and evil. If that includes many of your friends, then you need to find a better social circle.
FU
 

Arkady

President
Your timeline ignores the actions of the actual people who did 9/11 -- who would have gone forward with their plan if Gore had won in 2000, just as much as they did when Bush won. Clinton didn't prevent 9/11 -- the entire thing was organized on his watch.
The timeline is important to acknowledge, so it's fair for you to bring it up. Yes, the early planning took place in the last months of the Clinton presidency. And that's consistent with what I said about us not being able to be sure about whether the attack would have happened even with a decent president at the helm.

Consider a hypothetical Gore presidency. Would he have ignored Clarke and Tenet when, in early 2001, they presented their plan for putting al Qaeda on the defensive with a series of special operations and targeted strikes? Possibly. He, like Bush, might have preferred to focus on his domestic agenda early on. Or maybe, having been involved in similar strikes in the Clinton years, he'd have given them the green light. If that had happened, would it have stopped the 9/11 attacks? That's impossible to know. Perhaps it would have resulted in documents being uncovered or people being captured and interrogated who'd let the cat out of the bag in time to stop the attacks. Or perhaps not.

Similarly, if Gore had been president, would he have basically stuck that Hart-Rudman report in a drawer and done nothing about it? Possibly. I doubt it, though. I expect he'd have gone to work on implementing the suggestions, including pushing for a centralized homeland security function. If he'd done so, would it have stopped the 9/11 attacks? Again, that's impossible to know. Perhaps he'd have made enough progress on that front that people from until-then-compartmentalized intelligence functions would have brought their knowledge together in a way that uncovered the plot. Remember, we had a lot of the threads of the plot already in our possession, at the time -- it's just that no single person knew about enough of those threads to put it together (e.g., the information about suspicious people in the country, the information about what was happening at the flight schools, etc.). Maybe, in the process of consolidating a central homeland security function, enough of those threads would have come together for someone to follow up and discover the plot in time. Or perhaps not.

Similarly, would Gore have continued the Clinton-era practice of holding weekly "principals meetings" on the terrorist threat, to "shake the trees"? Tough to say for sure, but it's at least pretty unlikely that, like Bush, he wouldn't hold even a single such meeting until September. If he had held a bunch of those meetings, would they have resulted in more of a focus on the threat? Obviously. Would that greater focus have resulted in the plot being found in time? Maybe. Or maybe not.

Similarly, what if, when that infamous PDB came in, we had a president focused on doing his job, rather than retreating to his Texas mansion for yet another long vacation? Would a decent president have responded by asking the tough questions, rather than dismissively saying the experts had covered their butts and then going to clear brush? If a decent president had asked the tough questions, would the scramble for answers have led someone to the plot in time to stop it (or led to simple solutions like having airplanes reinforce cabin doors)? Maybe. It's impossible to say.

We don't know whether, with a decent president, the attacks would have been prevented, the way the Millennium Attacks had been in 2000. It's possible they would have, and possible that even responsible governance wouldn't have made a difference. Since that imbecile was dozing on the job in the critical months, we'll never know.

No one thought those missiles were going to do anything
What makes you imagine that?

I'm not the one who associates with monsters. Vent all you want, but only you can change that.
 

trapdoor

Governor
The timeline is important to acknowledge, so it's fair for you to bring it up. Yes, the early planning took place in the last months of the Clinton presidency. And that's consistent with what I said about us not being able to be sure about whether the attack would have happened even with a decent president at the helm.
The attack was not prevented. It wasn't prevented during the eight years of the Clinton presidency when it was being organized, and Clinton could no more have prevented it than he prevented the attack on the SS Cole roughly a year earlier, when he was still in office. Any "security increase" that occurred during the Clinton years, was simply good luck. But in case you've forgotten, those were the years that included the first WTC bombing, the SS Cole, and the Oklahoma City bombing, not too mention the planning of 9/11. Those pretty much show that Clinton was not on the qui vive when it comes to security.

C
onsider a hypothetical Gore presidency. Would he have ignored Clarke and Tenet when, in early 2001, they presented their plan for putting al Qaeda on the defensive with a series of special operations and targeted strikes? Possibly. He, like Bush, might have preferred to focus on his domestic agenda early on. Or maybe, having been involved in similar strikes in the Clinton years, he'd have given them the green light. If that had happened, would it have stopped the 9/11 attacks? That's impossible to know. Perhaps it would have resulted in documents being uncovered or people being captured and interrogated who'd let the cat out of the bag in time to stop the attacks. Or perhaps not.
It would have been a continuation of the presidency that brought you the other attacks I listed.
I'm not the one who associates with monsters. Vent all you want, but only you can change that.
You're writing off half the U.S. So did Hillary.
 

Arkady

President
The attack was not prevented.
Yes, and that's the knock on Bush. He was asleep at the switch during the critical months when it may have been possible to stop that attack.


It wasn't prevented during the eight years of the Clinton presidency when it was being organized, and Clinton could no more have prevented it than he prevented the attack on the SS Cole roughly a year earlier, when he was still in office
It's unclear whether Clinton could have stopped the 9/11 attack, the way the Millennium Attacks had been prevented, if he'd still been in office during the months leading up to 9/11. Certainly he was vastly more active in trying to stop terrorist attacks, as detailed in Clarke's memoir. Would that have been enough? Impossible to say. Even with a competent president, some attacks succeed (especially ones against our interests abroad, where the power of the president is much less).

You're writing off half the U.S. So did Hillary.
No. 62,984,828 Americans are irredeemable monsters who can be written off. But there are about 328 million of us. So that's less than 20%. Also Clinton didn't do what I'm doing. She wrongly believed that only half of those Trump supporters were deplorables. So that would be less than 10% of the overall population. She had a soft heart and refused to realize just how awful the Trump block was. She imagined fully 50% of them could be redeemed. Such naivite may have helped to lose the election, to the extent she squandered resources to try to win over such scum.... resources that would have been more effective turning out the vote with the other 80%. Trying to reach the hearts and minds of people who are heartless or brainless is a poor campaign strategy, and she paid dearly for it.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Yes, and that's the knock on Bush. He was asleep at the switch during the critical months when it may have been possible to stop that attack.
Eight years, vice seven months -- just another Clinton security failure.


It's unclear whether Clinton could have stopped the 9/11 attack, the way the Millennium Attacks had been prevented, if he'd still been in office during the months leading up to 9/11. Certainly he was vastly more active in trying to stop terrorist attacks, as detailed in Clarke's memoir. Would that have been enough? Impossible to say. Even with a competent president, some attacks succeed (especially ones against our interests abroad, where the power of the president is much less).
It's clear he didn't stop the Cole, first WTC, Oklahoma City bombing, etc. You spent considerable time touting up the expertise of his administration, but if they'd been that great, there would have been no 9/11 conspiracy to hand off to Bush.



No. 62,984,828 Americans are irredeemable monsters who can be written off. But there are about 328 million of us. So that's less than 20%. Also Clinton didn't do what I'm doing. She wrongly believed that only half of those Trump supporters were deplorables. So that would be less than 10%. She had a soft heart and refused to realize just how awful the Trump block was. She imagined fully 50% of them could be redeemed. Such naivite may have helped to lose the election, to the extent she squandered resources to try to win over such scum.... resources that would have been more effective turning out the vote with the other 80%.
I'm not certain where you're getting your numbers. Blather in any case.
 

Arkady

President
Eight years, vice seven months
You're preaching to the choir. The fact Bush couldn't prevent a massive foreign terrorist attack on our homeland for even a thirteenth as long as Clinton did really underscores his incompetence.

It's clear he didn't stop the Cole, first WTC, Oklahoma City bombing, etc.
Exactly. Even when you have a highly energetic and competent administration, focused on the terrorist threat in a way that even impresses lifelong Republican experts like Richard Clarke, some attacks still slip through. And that's why I say it's possible that even with a decent president, 9/11 would still have happened. Sadly, since we instead had a lazy imbecile in the White House in 2001, we'll never know for sure.

You spent considerable time touting up the expertise of his administration, but if they'd been that great, there would have been no 9/11 conspiracy to hand off to Bush.
What makes you imagine that? Do you think it's possible to be so competent that there won't be any terrorist conspiracies in existence? I don't believe so. As I said, even with decent presidencies, not only can there be terrorist conspiracies, but there can even be successful attacks. But, when they happen, we can at least take comfort in knowing that they took place despite all reasonable efforts having been made to stop them. With 9/11, as you know, we can't say that. What we know is that the biggest security failure in American history happened after months without any high-level meetings on the terrorist threat, and after the president declined one opening after another that might have made a difference.

I'm not certain where you're getting your numbers. Blather in any case.
The vote count can be found on the Wiki page for the 2016 election. The US population can be found on the Census's population clock page.
 

trapdoor

Governor
You're preaching to the choir. The fact Bush couldn't prevent a massive foreign terrorist attack on our homeland for even a thirteenth as long as Clinton did really underscores his incompetence.
The fact is that Clinton had eight years to prevent it and failed, and seven months wasn't enough time for Bush to have kept it from happening. Name the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil during the remaining 7 1/2 years of the Bush administration? You can't, because they didn't happen.
Exactly. Even when you have a highly energetic and competent administration, focused on the terrorist threat in a way that even impresses lifelong Republican experts like Richard Clarke, some attacks still slip through. And that's why I say it's possible that even with a decent president, 9/11 would still have happened. Sadly, since we instead had a lazy imbecile in the White House in 2001, we'll never know for sure.
Without trying I can name three during the Clinton administration, versus one during the Bush administration that was clearly planned while Clinton was in office. I'll take that record.


The vote count can be found on the Wiki page for the 2016 election. The US population can be found on the Census's population clock page.
I voted for Trump. I'd have voted for any major party candidate that wasn't Clinton. I assume this makes me either brainless or evil then. Hmmm.
 

Arkady

President
The fact is that Clinton had eight years to prevent it and failed
Actually, as a reminder, in his eight years he prevented even a single such attack from happening.

seven months wasn't enough time for Bush to have kept it from happening
But the question is whether it would have been enough time for a COMPETENT PRESIDENT to keep it from happening. We'll never know for sure.

Name the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil during the remaining 7 1/2 years of the Bush administration?
Sure. They happened one week later, when a terrorist mailed anthrax to a number of prominent figures, including Tom Brokaw and Democratic senators Tom Daschle and Pat Leahy. That terrorist attack wound up killing five, infecting 17 others, and causing a huge, nationwide panic. I remember well our office, at the time, ordering special gloves and facemasks for the secretaries who opened our mail. There was also a run on tarps and duct tape, as people tried to seal their homes against the anthrax.

Now, in Bush's defense, we did manage to go a whole week between 9/11 and the next terrorist attack on our homeland. So, I guess we can list that as an accomplishment.

I'd have voted for any major party candidate that wasn't Clinton. I assume this makes me either brainless or evil then. Hmmm.
Well, again, keep in mind the possibility that you're both brainless and evil.
 

SW48

Administrator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Failure......on every front:

WACO, Tex. — Over the past year, those of us in the anti-Trump camp have churned out billions of words critiquing the president. The point of this work is to expose the harm President Trump is doing, weaken his support and prevent him from doing worse. And by that standard, the anti-Trump movement is a failure.

We have persuaded no one. Trump’s approval rating is around 40 percent, which is basically unchanged from where it’s been all along.

We have not hindered him. Trump has more power than he did a year ago, not less. With more mainstream figures like H. R. McMaster, Rex Tillerson and Gary Cohn gone, the administration is growing more nationalist, not less.

We have not dislodged him. For all the hype, the Mueller investigation looks less and less likely to fundamentally alter the course of the administration.

We have not contained him. Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party is complete. Eighty-nine percent of Republicans now have a positive impression of the man. According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 59 percent of Republicans consider themselves more a supporter of Trump than of the Republican Party.

Complete text: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/opinion/trump-republicans.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/opinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront



What to do with this information? My guess would be the Anti=Trumpers will:

1) Deny it.

2) Failing that, ignore it.

3) Proceed unhindered by it with even more of what's failed so spectacularly.


All of which is good news for Donald Trump.

Should be entertaining, no?......:>)
Most of us in the middle watched anti Trump people, cnn, and msnbc, absolutely come unhinged and go insane over his presidency.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Actually, as a reminder, in his eight years he prevented even a single such attack from happening.
Actually I provided you a list of some of the times it happened during the preceding 8 years.
But the question is whether it would have been enough time for a COMPETENT PRESIDENT to keep it from happening. We'll never know for sure.
Well, we know the preceding president didn't keep it from happening, given eight years to prepare, so that's a place to start.

Sure. They happened one week later, when a terrorist mailed anthrax to a number of prominent figures, including Tom Brokaw and Democratic senators Tom Daschle and Pat Leahy. That terrorist attack wound up killing five, infecting 17 others, and causing a huge, nationwide panic. I remember well our office, at the time, ordering special gloves and facemasks for the secretaries who opened our mail. There was also a run on tarps and duct tape, as people tried to seal their homes against the anthrax.
Yes, also planned on Clinton's watch.




Well, again, keep in mind the possibility that you're both brainless and evil.
Keep in mind that ad hominem attacks do not make your case.
 

Arkady

President
Actually I provided you a list of some of the times it happened during the preceding 8 years.
Certainly I wouldn't argue that Clinton succeeded in stopping even smaller terrorist attacks. Some did occur. Neither would I attempt to blame those security failures on his predecessors. If anyone had responsibility to stop, say, the OK City attack, it was Clinton. And if someone wants to make the case for what kinds of actions he should have taken before that attack, which he neglected, and argue that if he'd acted more responsibly it wouldn't have happened, I'm all ears. That's where we are with Bush. He was shockingly negligent in the months leading up to the 9/11 attack, and it's highly plausible that any number of the efforts he should have taken and didn't would have made the difference.

Keep in mind that ad hominem attacks do not make your case.
It's not meant to. The substantive arguments make the case. The ad hominem's just for fun.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Certainly I wouldn't argue that Clinton succeeded in stopping even smaller terrorist attacks. Some did occur. Neither would I attempt to blame those security failures on his predecessors. If anyone had responsibility to stop, say, the OK City attack, it was Clinton. And if someone wants to make the case for what kinds of actions he should have taken before that attack, which he neglected, and argue that if he'd acted more responsibly it wouldn't have happened, I'm all ears. That's where we are with Bush. He was shockingly negligent in the months leading up to the 9/11 attack, and it's highly plausible that any number of the efforts he should have taken and didn't would have made the difference.
The SS Cole, the WTC bombing and Oklahoma City were not considered "small" when they occurred. Bush was no more negligent than Clinton when it comes to 9/11 which is rather the point.

It's not meant to. The substantive arguments make the case. The ad hominem's just for fun.
Well, to intelligent readers it should indicate that you can't argue on fact. What it indicates to your following, I'm not sure.
 

Arkady

President
The SS Cole, the WTC bombing and Oklahoma City were not considered "small" when they occurred.
True. It took Bush's colossal security failure to put those in a context where they look small.

Bush was no more negligent than Clinton when it comes to 9/11 which is rather the point.
I laid out the evidence of Bush's negligence in great detail. I explained all the things he wasn't doing that Clinton had been doing, and the things he did that nobody exercising due care would have done. I was very specific about his failures. If you can cite similar evidence of negligence by Clinton, feel free. For example, what specific steps do you think he should have realized were appropriate, before the OK City attack, which he didn't take? Did he, say, shelve a landmark blue-ribbon, bipartisan government study about the right-wing domestic terrorist threat, and therefore not take some steps urged by that study that could have resulted in detecting McVeigh's plot in time to stop it? I'm open to the possibility. But, at this point, what we have is an avalanche of evidence for Bush's negligence, and nothing of the sort for Clinton.

Well, to intelligent readers it should indicate that you can't argue on fact.
No. Clearly a reader would have to be remarkably unintelligent to wade through such lengthy and informed arguments based on fact, and then decide they didn't exist merely because I tossed in an insult at the end. It's hard to picture anyone that stupid.
 

trapdoor

Governor
True. It took Bush's colossal security failure to put those in a context where they look small.
Bush had only two terrorist attacks in eight years, both complex enough, and early enough in his tenure, that they were planned under Clinton. They're Clinton's security failures.

I laid out the evidence of Bush's negligence in great detail. I explained all the things he wasn't doing that Clinton had been doing, and the things he did that nobody exercising due care would have done. I was very specific about his failures. If you can cite similar evidence of negligence by Clinton, feel free. For example, what specific steps do you think he should have realized were appropriate, before the OK City attack, which he didn't take? Did he, say, shelve a landmark blue-ribbon, bipartisan government study about the right-wing domestic terrorist threat, and therefore not take some steps urged by that study that could have resulted in detecting McVeigh's plot in time to stop it? I'm open to the possibility. But, at this point, what we have is an avalanche of evidence for Bush's negligence, and nothing of the sort for Clinton.
Clinton suffered more security failures than Bush, probably because he spent a lot of time chasing down irrelevancies instead of pursuing a more aggressive anti-terrorism policy.
No. Clearly a reader would have to be remarkably unintelligent to wade through such lengthy and informed arguments based on fact, and then decide they didn't exist merely because I tossed in an insult at the end. It's hard to picture anyone that stupid.
Well, I'm doing the best I can -- some times I have to be long winded about the facts to get them all in. Of course, sheer fantasies take longer to create, which is why I assume your lst three posts are so long.
 

Arkady

President
Bush had only two terrorist attacks in eight years
Incorrect. You now seem to imagine that the anthrax attacks were the only terrorist attacks on his watch that you'd forgotten. They weren't. Remember the beltway snipers? There were many others. Of course, Fox News endlessly repeated the lie that there hadn't been a terrorist attack since 9/11, and that brainwashed those who live on the couch in front of Fox News. But mere repetition can't erase history.

The fact is vastly more people were killed on Bush's watch by terrorists than on Clinton's. Maybe that was just really bad luck. Or maybe it's because of the long list of dumb moves that I laid out. As I've said, I'm open to the idea that Clinton was negligent, if you want to specify moves that you think might have, say, stopped McVeigh. Maybe such hypothetical moves would have worked and maybe there was some reason Clinton should have made them. But, for now, no case to that effect has been made. Instead, we have an overwhelming case for shocking negligence on the part of Bush, leading up to the biggest security failure in American history.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I agree, the Clinton administration probably should have done something to prevent 9/11. There was a security failure. Clinton did NOT try to take Bin Laden out -- he blew up empty fields and aspirin factories. As for timeline, the Clinton administration had had 8 years -- the Bush administration about seven months.




Glad to hear a liberal finallly admit that Clinton wasn't decent, or is that now what you're saying? Again, eight years, vice seven months.



Basically any response to this would involve either defending 40 percent of the U.S. that includes many of my friends, or simply a long, drawn out "F****************K YOU!!! Forty percent of the U.S. is not brainless or evil, and that's the only real response that accusation merits.
When was it evident that Bin Laden was anti-US? You seem to think Bill Clinton should have known and been trying to get Bin Laden from the minute he became president..and didn't...
But then, Bush did actually know for 8 years that we needed to capture or kill Bin Laden..and didn't.

Actually Clinton did try to kill Bin Laden when he ordered the cruise missile attack on Tarnak farms. What did Bush do in the 8 months he was in charge? I mean, other than his month long vacation in Crawford.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Bush had only two terrorist attacks in eight years, both complex enough, and early enough in his tenure, that they were planned under Clinton. They're Clinton's security failures.

Clinton suffered more security failures than Bush, probably because he spent a lot of time chasing down irrelevancies instead of pursuing a more aggressive anti-terrorism policy.

Well, I'm doing the best I can -- some times I have to be long winded about the facts to get them all in. Of course, sheer fantasies take longer to create, which is why I assume your lst three posts are so long.
So...HW Bush is to blame for the first WTC attack? Is that the way it works?
Bush had 8 months in which, armed with a warning, he could have at least warned airports and airlines that something was up...he did not.

The beltway sniper killed 21 people from Feb 2002 to October 2002.

WND seems to attribute any violence by a Muslim is a terrorist attack, but here is their list
http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/big-list-of-muslim-terror-attacks-in-u-s-since-911/
 

trapdoor

Governor
So...HW Bush is to blame for the first WTC attack? Is that the way it works?
Bush had 8 months in which, armed with a warning, he could have at least warned airports and airlines that something was up...he did not.

The beltway sniper killed 21 people from Feb 2002 to October 2002.

WND seems to attribute any violence by a Muslim is a terrorist attack, but here is their list
http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/big-list-of-muslim-terror-attacks-in-u-s-since-911/
If you could, as you did, blame the entire poor performance of Obama's eight years in office to GWB, I guess you can blame the first WTC on GHWB, if it makes you feel better.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Incorrect. You now seem to imagine that the anthrax attacks were the only terrorist attacks on his watch that you'd forgotten. They weren't. Remember the beltway snipers? There were many others. Of course, Fox News endlessly repeated the lie that there hadn't been a terrorist attack since 9/11, and that brainwashed those who live on the couch in front of Fox News. But mere repetition can't erase history.
I suppose it's a fine distinction, but although they instilled terror, the Beltway Snipers were more serial killers than terrorists. Kindly name some of the "many others."

T
he fact is vastly more people were killed on Bush's watch by terrorists than on Clinton's. Maybe that was just really bad luck. Or maybe it's because of the long list of dumb moves that I laid out. As I've said, I'm open to the idea that Clinton was negligent, if you want to specify moves that you think might have, say, stopped McVeigh. Maybe such hypothetical moves would have worked and maybe there was some reason Clinton should have made them. But, for now, no case to that effect has been made. Instead, we have an overwhelming case for shocking negligence on the part of Bush, leading up to the biggest security failure in American history.
The fact remains that with warning (from the first WTC attack), Clinton had weven years to prevent 9/11. Bush had about seven months from January 20 to Sept. 11.
 

Arkady

President
I suppose it's a fine distinction, but although they instilled terror, the Beltway Snipers were more serial killers than terrorists.
All violent crimes instill terror. But the beltway snipers were proven to be terrorists in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt. That was the unanimous ruling of the jurors:

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/23/us/virginia-justices-set-death-sentence-in-washington-sniper-case.html

Kindly name some of the "many others."
Sure. There was the LAX shooting, in 2002, the 2006 UNC SUV attack, the 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting, the 2008 terrorist attack on a Universalist Church, which left two dead and injured six, etc. The 2006 Capitol Hill Massacre was also, arguably, a terrorist attack, since a note indicated the mass shooting was motivated by wanting to end the sexual licentiousness of ravers. Of course, a key conservative talking point during the Bush years is that he had prevented any terrorist attacks after 9/11. So, conservatives conveniently developed a kind of instant amnesia, where even terrorist attacks that had commanded obsessive public attention for weeks, like the Beltway Snipers and Anthrax attacks, were flushed down the memory hole in the interests of preserving the talking point.

The fact remains that with warning (from the first WTC attack), Clinton had weven years to prevent 9/11.
And for eight years no such attack took place -- something Bush couldn't keep going for eight months.
 
Top