The Bushies' disdain for all things Clintonian is well-documented. The fact that Tenet was a Clinton appointee probably worked against him, but they kept him on anyway. Tenet was Bush's choice for DCI.

Tenet was kept on the reccomendation of Bush Sr. Bush Sr., as a former DCI himself, was impressed with Tenet, and told his son that Tenet was worth keeping.

The fact that he was a holdover from the Clinton administration doesn't lessen Bush's responsibility for making that choice or his responsibility for Tenet's job performance in the
months before 9-11.

I agree. But Stratfor's point is that he should have been fired either way - either because Tenet failed, or because Bush failed.

One of the things that President Franklin D. Roosevelt
did was to clean house after the Pearl Harbor attack. This
housecleaning was not necessarily fair. Adm. Husband Kimmel,
Commander in Chief, Pacific (CINCPAC), for example, was fired
even though a strong case could be made that he was less
responsible than others for Pearl Harbor. Nevertheless, Pearl
Harbor happened on his watch and he was gone.

It went deeper than that. Roosevelt wanted to signal that
something had gone terribly wrong not only with one person but
also with a generation of leaders. Relatively junior commanders
Chester Nimitz and Dwight Eisenhower were catapulted into senior
command positions. Not all of the old leaders were replaced --
consider Douglas MacArthur or George Marshall -- but there was a
broad enough housecleaning that no one could escape the fact that
the war had changed everything. You could argue that Roosevelt
did this to protect himself, but if so, he was doing his job.

Furthermore, the FBI also failed. Why no mention of those failures and the responsibility for them?

I think it's the CIA's job to keep foreigners off the grass. The FBI is set up as a law enforcement agency. During the cold war, they also handled espionage, etc., but that's within the cold war context - state actors, embassies, etc. You can't just declare a terrorist persona non grata. There were FBI errors that led to 9/11. Serious error. But it begins with the CIA. They're the first line of defence.

Terrorism. As Colin Powell said in 2001, the Iraq threat was contained.

Stratfor's point here is that Americans were involved in daily combat operations in Iraq in 2001. It was a war - a small war - but a war nonetheless. Iraq may have been contained, but it was a very very active containment.

Terrorism was a greater threat.

We know that now. But I believe the administration thought they had a handle on this. More below.

Strawman. Who's said Bush should be blamed for "unique neglect?"

Well, you do: "Nonsense. The Clinton administration had Clarke attending principals meetings, a clear indication they regarded terrorism more seriously than the Bushies. The Clinton administration thwarted several terrorist operations. What terrorist operations have the Bushies stymied? Just comparing body counts shows how asinine the statement is."

Has anyone asserted that the Clinton administration is blameless?

No. The Stratfor article I posted doesn't say that at all:

The fact is, in our view, the Bush and Clinton policies were far more similar than they were
different. We are not quite certain who we have insulted with that claim.

Another strawman. Who in the Clinton administration has claimed it "devoted major resources and made a great effort to hunt down and destroy al Qaeda?"

Richard Clarke: "The government's former top counterterrorism adviser testified Wednesday that the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than combatting terrorists while the Bush administration made it "an important issue but not an urgent issue."

He also failed before the fact, by not marshalling the resources at his disposal to adequately address the threat that his DCI told him was immediate. A good leader in Bush's shoes would've listened to the warnings and made a serious effort to get actionable intelligence in the months before 9-11.

I have explained in a post below that I believe percautions were taken against hijackings. Furthermore, I believe that the Bush administration had recieved some specific warning about an al Qaeda hijacking plot. SF Mayor Willie Brown, for example, was warned not to fly shortly before 9/11.

But Bush et al thought they had the situation in hand. The ARPA program I note (which I have seen referred to as "Home Run") thwarts hijackers. Some websites (e.g. Center for Cooperative Research) note that NORAD was running hijacker drills that morning.

I think the terrorists deliberately allowed the US to learn of a hijacking plot. But they didn't allow the US to learn that they knew how to defeat Home Run. In effect, they got inside the US decision cycle.