>>>>>>Hey, Mike,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not a fan of Bush....but under his Administration, American soil has remained unattacked after 9/11. We will never know what would have occured.
>>>>>
>>>>>But, aside from Clinton, US soil had not been attacked TILL his administration!
>>>>
>>>>Pearl Harbor. Did the sterling democrat FDR get any criticism for that?
>>>
>>>Actually, he did. As did the General Staff of the Army and Navy, especially the Intelligence sections. In fact, the Admiral in command of the base at Pearl got 'fired'. Really, before you go slinging glasses in your rock house, do some reading first.
>>
>>Actually, it was a question.
>
>"Did FDR get an criticism for that?" is a question.
>
>"Did the sterling democrat FDR get any criticism for that?" is a rhetorical question where the answer is that he didn't, because he was such a "sterling democrat"
>
I tend to agree with you: that question was largely rhetorical. If you don't mind, I would propose another line of reasoning for this case. It could be assumed that Al Qaeda planned more strikes against US targets, i.e. they were not going to stop after 9/11. Would you agree with this assumption? If yes, then President really deserves credit for preventing more attacks. What is your opinion?