Oh, Walsingham, we are entering the new age in which form triumphs 100% over substance. We will talk the talk in the chic places--the UN, Stockholm, Davos, about "understanding" and "engagement" and all of the sophisticated people will pat us on the back, glad to know that we are civilized, and impotent like them.

While all the happy little bombers breathe a sigh of relief and order more parts for bombs.

And when the bombs blow up and kill lots of people then it will be because we were not understanding enough.

How does it feel to be a prison bitch?

I have a reason, Our new President will read and react to the intell briefing before we are attacked unlike bush on 9/11

Richard, get real. The Church committee gutted the intelligence services. One FBI agent wanted to tell people that Arabs were learning how to fly but not land--no one listened.

Another Arab's computer was impounded and the government was afraid to look into it, and all the plans were there.

Surely I can't have made that up; it's too insane.

And if you're going to escalate to "Bush lied and people died," recall that Bush listened to the best intelligence estimates that were given him.

You made this up out of whole cloth.

Just like Bill Clinton was so easily able to do before the first WTC bombing. And before the bombing of the USS Cole. And before the bombing of the Murrah Federal office building in Oklahoma City.

Yes, Our new President will be omniscient. That's just good policy!

I am not saying that the guy who can't remember what his preacher was saying from the pulpit for 20 years wouldn't be able to discern the nature, time, and place of the attacks when the country's entire intelligence apparatus couldn't. I just have some doubts is all.

I guess I should be thankful that Bush is at least being given credit for not knowing of the attack in advance if only for the reason that it means he didn't plan it himself.

Theo: What you are referring to is the "Wall" set up by Fannie Mae big and Obama Attorney General wannabe Jamie Gorelick that prevented the CIA and the FBI from sharing information on security threats.

I read on one of the major news websites that Obama was ordering the closing of the Gitmo prison. He was also going to order the end of "enchanced interogation techniques" used by the CIA and require the CIA to abide by the Army's guide for handling prisoners. The ordering of the prison closed will probably never happen. If the 'detainees' are brought onto American soil and given access to American courts; its only a matter of time before a suicide bomber is released (in America). As far as the CIA being required to handle prisoners according to the Army's standards. I'm okay with that. Of course, most people don't realize that the "Geneva Conventions" offer no protections what so ever to "unlawful combatants" and in accordance with "Army Regulations", "Unlawful Combatants" can be declared so by the officer in charged, on the battlefield, and once declared so, the officer can order their immediate execution. What does it take to be declared an "unlawful combatant"? An individual, intent on doing harm, taken prisoner either wearing no uniform and/or no rank/insignia. A good example of this; during WWII, the germans unloaded a group of english speaking germans (less than 10) to the continental US. Their mission: Sabotage of domestic infrastructure. One had second thoughts and turned himself in to the FBI, he then gave up the rest of the infiltrators. The military interogated them, and then the President declared them "Unlawful Combatants" and ordered their executions. The miltary got the order, and that day, one by one, executed every one of them. All without trial, on American soil, all of this happened over the course of like one Week; and most importantly, it was Legal.

Will Obama be that bold in protecting us from Terrorists? No. Will he be as bold as Bush? Most likely not. So will we be safer with a President who is more worried about the enemy's 'rights' and 'comfort' than the damage they can and will do to us? Almost certainly not.

Midlander, six of the eight Germans were executed in the District of Columbia following a military trial for their actions. Dennis P. McIlnay wrote "The Horseshoe Curve: Sabotage and Subversion in the Railroad City" published by Seven Oaks Press in 2007. He covers that incident thoroughly.

1st off I am from Cal and my son just returned from Irag last Feb(82nd). Bush and his bunch had the intell to stop 9/11 but failed to do so(remember his statement to the briefers "you have covered your butts". He then used 9/11 to invade IRAG. I understand that midland has profited by the run up in oil prices but was it worth 7,000 dead america soldiers.

Richard: First off, please forward my thanks to your son for his service to the country.

Now, please cite your source that shows that Bush had the intel that would have provided advance warning of the attacks and their specific nature and timing. Let us at least work from the same set of facts.

Also show me were Bush said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. He never did. He did allude to connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq which were not near as strong as those between Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan but were found nonetheless.

Finally, what connection is there between higher (and now lower) oil prices and Iraq?

Really there's one main reasons, with many variations, and it can be paraphrased as' "Only Nixon could go to China."

Really there's one main reason, with many variations, and it can be paraphrased as, "Only Nixon could go to China."

Thank for from my son . He ETS from the army(after 4 years and 2 combat tours) and is now going to school (he made the deans list,kid is smarter then I am). There is a lot of info about bush not giving a darn about intell untill after the attack, except for the interesting fact that members of his group stopped flying commercial airlines in july 01.

Marco:

An interesting answer. But in this scenario, what is it that plays the part of China and why is the President Nixon? And is this on the domestic front or the foreign relations front?

To the original post:

Because he has a much itchier trigger finger for the drones' missles (see yesterday's news).

Just like Clinton was OK with bombing Serbia from 10,000 feet, and launched cruise missles at unoccupied tents in abandoned terrorist camps, BHO will be happy to pop off a missle from the drones to be seen as taking some kind of action without endangering troops.