How about we let everyone take a look at the sequence of posts and see what they think?

You keep making the implication--numerous times--that Bush ignored a unique and irrefutable piece of information that, had he acted on it by instituting exactly those remedies that your first paragraph declared would have been intolerable to Americans, would have prevented 9/11. This is a load of bat guano four solid feet thick, and I for one am getting a bit sick of it. I've looked at the stories, read about the memos, and everything else. There was no "killer memo" that proved beyond doubt that we were going to be attacked by that method. There was no irrefutable piece of intelligence that made the terror environment after Bush's inauguration radically different from what it was under Clinton.

If you want, check out this piece of testimony. Please note the information that intelligence sources were coming up with prior to Bush taking office. This won't make any impression on you, but others here might find it instructive.

Note in particular pages 14-17.

Which of these warnings was the one that would require drastic action? Do you know? Neither did the intelligence agencies, Bush, or Clinton for that matter.

I'm beginning to remember why you piss me off. You are completely immune to facts, references, and most forms of logic. And you come back with the same crap, as though I'd never said anything.

That, and the habit of making some smirking, elliptical statement and then getting huffy when I interpret it in the only reasonable way possible, and claiming you never said anything like that.

I don't know if you hang out at other boards. Maybe you really dazzle them there with your Michael Moore verbal footwork, like an amateur magician playing to a birthday party full of five-year-olds. It ain't working here.