That's absolutely true. Not since Pearl Harbor has a president allowed such a massive attack to occur within US borders. Although in fairness, back then communications were significantly worse and radar was in its infancy. In 2001, communications with the president were good, and intelligence gathering did warn about the coming threat of hijackings. But the good news is that his ranch is brush-free.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=afHE5JQEJyII&refer=home Sept. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Islamic terrorists targeted the U.S. Embassy in Yemen's capital, Sana'a, blowing up a car outside the entrance to the compound and killing 16 people in the second attack against the mission in six months. In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters ``it is fair to say'' the assault ``bears all the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda attack.''
Pearl Harbor was not a terrorist attack. It was a military attack on a military base. I also disagree with you about the intelligence aspect. Sure today's intelligence is better, but if you ask me a military attack by Japan on our naval fleet in the middle of the pacific ocean while we were at war with them in that very same area is more likely than terrorists from half way across the world coming into our country and flying civilian planes into the WTC towers. You know what I'm referring to when I say terrorist attack.By your statement you are equating the terror threat of the last 4-8 years with the terror threat of today? hmmm
Oops. Mean to say "You are comparing the terror threat of today with the terror threat of 60 years ago?"