Who was Clarke's boss and who is the President of the USA?

Richard Clarke himself said that he was the one that authorized the bin Laden flight. Is he lying about that, or are you? If Clarke is lying about this, then what else in his highly touted book (highly touted because it was critical of Bush) might he be lying about? His own words show that your claim was a lie.

Someone speculated what a commercial jet or private plane with explosives would do if crashed into one of the towers. Do you think if we had sent an email about this to Bush he would have done anything?

So, what would you have had Bush do? Please be specific, pre 9/11, what actions would you have had the Bush administration do to prevent what happened that day? (And BTW, those planes weren't packed with explosives, they used their fuel and kinetic energy to do the damage).

Bush did object to the 9/11 commission being formed and has tried to put up obstacles and hold back.

And given what has happened with the rabid partisans on the Commission, I'm not surprised Bush objected to it. The commission has become a farce. Anyone who believes it is more than a partisan exercise is a moron.

If you believe Bush knows more about the Iraq and Alkida connection then you accept that he did hold back (even though it is against the law). And if not he is lying again and there is no connection. All the familes want is closer and Bush wants an unend war against terror.

Look at todays fearmongers alert. No new news. They leave U at the same threat level and the fearmongering is clearly effective with old ladies and fools.

Now you're sounding like the lunatics on the left with conspiracy theories. You appear to know absolutely nothing about how the intelligence community works (and sometimes fails to work). There are levels of classification so far above top secret that it isn't even funny, and even presidents aren't cleared for everything. Bush made his evaluation based on the information he was given. That information was highly filtered by the intelligence community as it always is. If there's anything high and holy in the intel community, it's sources. They will go to extremes to protect sources because, once they're burned, they're lost forever. If Bush held something back from the commission (which remains to be seen), it was to protect sources that the commission wasn't cleared to know about. Just because some has-been political hack wants to know something, it doesn't mean they have the authorization to know it.

We have always been a target and will always be a target of terror. If Bush can't protect us we need someone new in office. This whole Homeland Security thing is a joke! There are so many holes in it you could literally drive a truck throw the protection.

While we may have always been a target, until recently, the terrorists lacked the means to attack us in a significant way here in the US. The security situation is far from perfect, but to date we have not had a terrorist attack here in the US since 9/11. That's something few people would've expected on 9/12. Homeland Security is a work in progress. They're working to break down the barriers to effective law enforcement and terrorism prevention that existed between dozens of government agencies, many of whom where prohibited by law from sharing information before 9/11. It'll take years before that job will be finished.

Now, instead of just bashing Bush, tell me what John Kerry will do to protect us from terrorism. Be sure to provide links to credible sources where Kerry says something rather than just speculating on your own what Kerry should do. Please be specific.