What you're saying is true, every word of it. But aren't we taking advantage of hindsight here in order to attack a decision we might very well have made ourselves had we been in the Bush position? As you yourself point out, you slammed Clinton for going after Bin Ladin. At the time, it seemed to be the right thing to do for you. Now we all know better.

The point is, we are faced with an avalanche of clues and hints of what may happen, but we can't respond to all of them. We must prioritize, and we must base our decisions on how we prepare for potential threats on how we rank them in the probability that they will occur. We interpret intelligence in different ways, we bring different mindsets and interpretations to the problems, and different ideologies to frame them in and organize our thoughts, and we are distracted by what may honestly appear at the time as more pressing concerns. We all live in different universes.

The Bush administration may have indeed been guilty of negligence for ignoring the Al-Quaeda warnings, but can they really be blamed? It is easy for us NOW to point the finger and say AHA! But can you really say that when you admit you yourself had criticized the Clinton attacks at the time.

In any leadership position, you do the best you can with what you know, you juggle a multitude of threats (and opportunities) and you try to maximize the odds in your favor as much as you can. Intelligence, luck, your philosophy
and history will have the final say. I'm not saying that failure shouldn't be condemned, or success applauded, after all, that is how we learn, by acquiring painful experience. I'm just saying it ain't easy to tell success and failure apart when you are in a position to actually do something about it. In the end, instinct and intuition, our subconscious thought processes, will play a much larger role than our scientific age cares to admnit.

Look at how many threats we face now, global warming, overpopulation, resource shortages, economic collapse, debt, pollution, nuclear war, social unrest; hell, even an asteroid strike or world-wide killer plague. Most probably won't happen, or will be survivable, or are inextricably linked with one another. The leader can't prepare for everything equally, he must prioritize, take chances, leave things out, and he will make mistakes. At best it is a purely statistical process, not a question of good or evil. History will make its judgement eventually, and it will not always be a correct one or fair one. Those who presume to evaluate the performance of others are just as prone to error and prejudice. The only advantage they can claim is access to a little more data.

The biggest mistake we can make, the biggest crime, is to fail to realize this. To think we have all the answers and that others are fools or criminals because they don't agree with us. Sometimes the Jimmy Carters get dealt the lousy hand, and the Ronald Reagans draw to an inside straight. And always, shit happens. The world is not a simple or straightforward place, cut and dry, black and white.