The year IS 2002. The President IS GWB (not legitimately elected, but still President).

You know and I know that prior to 9-11 (2001) there wasn't the political will to do more than was done.

The Ds don't look good in this stuff, I'll grant. They just look better than the Rs.

It was Rice who said the warnings weren't worth looking into. It was Ashcroft who was cutting the counter-terrorism budget even as WTC was being destroyed.

9-11 happened on GWBs watch during the year 2001 CE. (That means it was GWBs ship, he was responsible for it.) How do you spin that?

All right then, you know and I know that prior to 9-11 Ashcroft was cutting the counter-terrorism budget from what Clinton proposed. Does that change the spin?

Unless a person is a conservative Carville, ignoring the facts and shooting from the lip no matter what. In that case talk about so-called Democratic hypocrisy, which is a bad case of conservatives trying to cover their incompetence by continuing to blame Clinton! (Can you believe that - they still blame Clinton! Poor puppies!)

Arf