TTR,

A classic example of the type of thing that I object to:

"Between Bush's inauguration, and 9/11, lies a very important issue. It has been SUGGESTED, by very credible and respected people (NAME THEM)... who have managed to escape the 'hard ball' Bush team tactics... that Bush paid little attention to the real threat posed by al Qaida durring this time (NOT EVEN RICHARD CLARKE SUGGESTS THIS TO BE THE CASE), and intended to shift the focus of 'the terrorist threat' to Iraq from the beginning of his term."

You put that across, as the gospel truth, that the Bush administration ignored the threat posed by Al-Qaeda, earlier you even suggested that resources were withdrawn or diverted from combating this threat. Even Richard Clarke's testimony and that of both Berger and Tenet indicate clearly that neither was the case - So why do you continue to peddle those distortions as representing the truth when clearly they are not.