You said perception ? Then perceive yourself : http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm "At 9:03 AM on 11 September 2001, the second airplane hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center. President Bush was in Florida, at the Emma T. Booker Elementary School, listening to children read. Chief of Staff Andrew Card came over and whispered in Bush's ear, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." What did the Commander in Chief do? Nothing. He sat there. He sat for well over 5 minutes, doing nothing while 3,000 people were dying and the attacks were still in progress. [...] Apologists claim that Bush didn't leave simply because he didn't want to interrupt and upset the children, but this falls apart for several reasons: 1) America is being attacked, thousands are dying, and Bush doesn't know if we're facing nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks, as well. Couldn't he just say, "Excuse me, kids, I need to take care of something. It's part of being President, y'understand. I'll be back as soon as I can." 2) At the moment Card told Bush about the second plane, the children weren't reading to Bush. They had finished reading words from an easel and were reaching under their chairs for a book when Card whispered to Bush. Another 30 seconds would elapse before they started reading again. This pause was a perfect time for Bush to politely excuse himself. 3) By staying, he not only endangered his own life, but the lives of all of those children. Wouldn't it be better to risk upsetting them than to risk letting them die in a terror attack? 4) Even if Bush was afraid of hurting the kiddies' feelings, what about the Secret Service? Have they been trained not to attempt to save the President's life if it might bother some schoolchildren? 5) What about Chief of Staff Andrew Card, White House Spokesperson Ari Fleischer, and other officials who were in that classroom? Didn't they feel that a 21st-century Pearl Harbor and a potential attack on the President himself were worth some sort of action? 6) Finally, and most damningly, this excuse doesn't explain why Bush continued to mill around the classroom for several minutes after the children had finished reading. "
Most of the events that you have cited appeared on CIA Director George Tenet's watch. And for some reason you and Beltway refuse to answer my last question, so I will ask it only one more time: Why does George Bush allow Director Tenet to still have a job after all of these attacks on our Country? Why does he still have a job? Why?
Bush is a good ole boy, and if a good ole boy likes you then it doesn't matter how much you screw up, you are still in. Why Bush likes Tenet is anyone's guess.
Waggie, this is the best you can do in responding to my post? Put the blame at the feet of the CIA director? Not a word about Clinton's lack of response, or pathetic attempts at response to the multitude of attacks that occured under his watch? Shouldn't the first attack on US soil, the WTC bombing in 1993 have raised some eyebrows? I don't even know why I bother responding to your hysterics, because you never answer my questions. It's very one-sided, this "debate" we're having. Having said that, I believe Bush keeps Tenet on because he feels he's doing a good enough job. That's probably why Clinton kept him on. Why aren't you asking why Clinton kept him on, or does your tunnel vision extend only to laying blame on Bush? The CIA has thwarted many attacks on us, but 9/11 was unpreventable. Yes, more could have been done, but Clarke himself admits there was not enough actionable intelligence to foil the plot. And oh, here's a little more ammo for you to use in your Bush-hate arsenal: Clarke's 9/11 commission testimony included the following - "George Tenet and I tried very hard to create a sense of urgency. I don't think it was ever treated that way."
Yeah, I guess it is pretty difficult to create a sense of urgency when the President is down in Crawford, Texas the entire month of August . . . chopping wood. Note: Your logic regarding Bush keeping Tenet onboard is very weak. But I don't know why I am not surprised . . . your points are always full of partisan rhetoric, with no basis in fact.
Pointing out that Tenet was not in Clinton's administration is "partisan rhetoric"? Apparently anything that questions the previous administration's actions (or in most cases, inactions) is partisan rhetoric.