Mag, you really are quite entertaining. For you, 9/11 never occurred on Bush's "watch" . . . instead, he "inherited" 9/11 from Clinton. Your twisted logic continues to make new lows. Congrats!
I guess it was Clinton's fault that Bush ignored this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US was the President's Daily Brief given to U.S. President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001. The President's Daily Brief (PDB) is a brief of important classified information on national security collected by various U.S. intelligence agencies given to the president and a select group of senior officials. The brief warned of terrorism threats from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda over a month before the September 11, 2001 attacks.[1] Some arguments have focused on clear warnings in this letter, specifically that: the title was Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US a large attack was planned the attack would be on United States soil target cities of attacks included New York City and Washington, D.C. the World Trade Center bombing was explicitly mentioned hijacked plane missions were anticipated people living in, or traveling to, the United States were involved recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York was witnessed.
Why not blame Clinton for Katrina as well http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301711.html White House Got Early Warning on Katrina In the 48 hours before Hurricane Katrina hit, the White House received detailed warnings about the storm's likely impact, including eerily prescient predictions of breached levees, massive flooding, and major losses of life and property, documents show. A 41-page assessment by the Department of Homeland Security's National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC), was delivered by e-mail to the White House's "situation room," the nerve center where crises are handled, at 1:47 a.m. on Aug. 29, the day the storm hit, according to an e-mail cover sheet accompanying the document. The NISAC paper warned that a storm of Katrina's size would "likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching" and specifically noted the potential for levee failures along Lake Pontchartrain. It predicted economic losses in the tens of billions of dollars, including damage to public utilities and industry that would take years to fully repair. Initial response and rescue operations would be hampered by disruption of telecommunications networks and the loss of power to fire, police and emergency workers, it said. In a second document, also obtained by The Washington Post, a computer slide presentation by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, prepared for a 9 a.m. meeting on Aug. 27, two days before Katrina made landfall, compared Katrina's likely impact to that of "Hurricane Pam," a fictional Category 3 storm used in a series of FEMA disaster-preparedness exercises simulating the effects of a major hurricane striking New Orleans. But Katrina, the report warned, could be worse. The hurricane's Category 4 storm surge "could greatly overtop levees and protective systems" and destroy nearly 90 percent of city structures, the FEMA report said. It further predicted "incredible search and rescue needs (60,000-plus)" and the displacement of more than a million residents. The NISAC analysis accurately predicted the collapse of floodwalls along New Orleans's Lake Pontchartrain shoreline, an event that the report described as "the greatest concern." The breach of two canal floodwalls near the lake was the key failure that left much of central New Orleans underwater and accounted for the bulk of Louisiana's 1,100 Katrina-related deaths. The documents shed new light on the extent on the administration's foreknowledge about Katrina's potential for unleashing epic destruction on New Orleans and other Gulf Coast cities and towns. President Bush, in a televised interview three days after Katrina hit, suggested that the scale of the flooding in New Orleans was unexpected. "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm," Bush said in a Sept. 1 interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
Michael Chertoff: "Who would have thought that the levees in New Orleans would fail?" Condi Rice: "Who could have imagined that terrorists would use commercial airplanes as weapons?" Dick Cheney: "Who would have thought that we would have had this bad of a financial crisis?"
The answer is pretty much no one anticipated these events. I am not aware of any democrats warning about them. Let's take them one by one. New Orleans. Hurricane evacuation and safety measures are a state and local responsibility. Florida, Georgia, SC, NC, Virginia, Texas, Mississippi, etc, all manage to keep their residents more or less safe from hurricanes by a combination of early warning and mandatory evacuation. Only Lousiana, our most corrupt state, failed. An inept state govenrment, run by democrats, and a comically incompetent NO city government, run by black democrats, failed miserably at evacuating or otherwise safeguarding NO residents. Ressidents of other states in hurrican-prone areas have enough sense to look out for themselves. Only in NO did tens of thousands of able-bodied people just sit around like farm animals, seemingly unaware that a killer hurricane was headed for their below sea level city. Somehow, this total breakdown in state and local government and personal responsibility became the sole fault of Bush and FEMA. Ridiculous but par for the course for liberals. Create a disaster then blame republicans for it. 9/11. One daily briefing memo mentioned attacks. This is known in the trade as a CYA memo. Throw out eveything, so that you can later said you covered it. Was the intell actionable? What was Bush supposed to do, shut down the nation's airports? Liberals were already screaming about "unconstitutional" profiling, so forget concentrating on the people likely to commit such an attack. Financial crisis. Name one person in either party who thought the crisis would be as bad as it turned out to be. Certainly not loudmouths like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd or chuckie Schumer, who protected the fraudulent pols running FNM and FRE and pushed unsafe affirmative action lending. The two government officials most responsible, Fed Chairman Bernanke and NY Fed head Geithner, are fixtures in the current administration. Bush was on balance a bad president, but I am sick of these unfair attacks. Obama complains about the Bush deficit. He doesn;t mention that virtually every democrat in congress voted for that spending, and most of them were complaining it wasn't enough.
I think most Obama supporters here know that Obama is inexperienced and they know he is not an expert on the economy. They just don't want to flat out admit it in Obama's first month. If conservatives attack Obama his supporters on here and cable news have to revert to the "two wrongs make a right" argument because they seriously do not have a substantial argument for Obama when it comes to the economy. They say Bush spent trillions more on the wars then Obama did in his stimulus package. I don't know if the dems realize this but this type of full denial into the honesty of Obama's knowledge about economics will only hurt them in the future. If everyone just admitted that invading other countries is not the best idea and that Obama has some room for improvement then this forum would be much more functional.