Here is a series of posts. I'm aware that you misquoted me, then drew some unflattering conclusions, and refused to apologize when the error was politely pointed out to you. I'm wonder what your rationale is for that. This takes a bit of tracking. I apologize for that. Take all the time necessary.

Bowser: Before January 21, 2001, the political climate was such that there wasn't a whole lot which could be done in this regard. Based on the knowledge available no one would have been able to stir up much energy for jerking civil rights, increasing the lines at airports, and so on. Imagine if Clinton had tried to tell the American people that they were going to have to spend an extra hour, minimum, at the airport before every flight.

After January 21,2001, we don't know what could have been done, because they won't tell you what they did know. We are aware, however, that the National Security Advisor has said that she wouldn't have dreamed anyone would fly an airplane into a building.

That seems to be a spectacular blind spot in someone who was/is paid to look for those things. Other people had had the idea, and even published it.

We do know that on September 10, 2001, John Ashcroft, the Attorney General, submitted a budget to Congress ACTUALLY CUTTING THE AMOUNT RECOMMENDED BY THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION for COUNTER-TERRORISM.

That will tell you a bit about where counter-terrorism was on the screen for the Bush Administration.

Now, please try to understand this, and it is going to sound condescending because I can't think of another way to say it, GEORGE WALKER BUSH was President on 9-11, and had been for some months.

And he won't tell you what he knew about the attacks before they happened. Is stonewalling the Commission, won't testify under oath, and won't allow his National Security Advisor to testify in public or under oath even though she has been talking at every Sunday news show that will have her for months.

Not only did they try to cut the counter-terrorism budget, they're hiding something.

And, so help me, 9-11, the WTC events, occurred after GWB & Co. had been in office for some time. Really.

Arf

Now, you break in and quote the first paragraph. You conveniently omit the second paragraph.

Before January 21, 2001, the political climate was such that there wasn't a whole lot which could be done in this regard. Based on the knowledge available no one would have been able to stir up much energy for jerking civil rights, increasing the lines at airports, and so on. Imagine if Clinton had tried to tell the American people that they were going to have to spend an extra hour, minimum, at the airport before every flight.

Now the start of a rant, without including my second paragraph.

T. B. "If you had any honesty whatsoever, you would have put that date down as September 11, 2001. To claim that the terror environment suddenly "changed" when Bush took office is inane." Etc. There's more, in the same vein.

I replied:

Tom, if you were to be honest you would have included my following paragraph:

"After January 21,2001, we don't know what could have been done, because they won't tell you what they did know. We are aware, however, that the National Security Advisor has said that she wouldn't have dreamed anyone would fly an airplane into a building."

To accuse me of dishonesty seems a bit inaccurate. To claim I said the environment suddenly changed is, well, frankly, a lie. A premeditated lie, a calculated lie, and you owe me an apology.

Arf

Now, do you want to be known as a person who refuses to apologize when they deliberately misquote someone and then call that person "dishonest" and "inane"? When you accuse them of saying the climate changed when that person said they didn't know?

If so, we can leave it. You and REB can give yourselves high fives, and we'll know a lot more about both of you.

Or if you've enough character, you can review the matter and do what's appropriate.

Here I think it's customary to say "Regards" and/or "Cheers".

Arf