> But the evidence points to the fact that Clinton/Gore took > them _more_ seriously than Bush did.
No, it doesn't. They stung us repeatedly on Clinton's watch. And I'm not faulting Clinton here. The whole notion that somebody should have known before 9-11 that they were going to escalate like they did is absurd. You assess risks and you guess. Clinton blew it. Bush didn't correct it. So what? Really, so what? Nobody got this right, and the reason they didn't wasn't malice. It was thinking that past behavior predicts future behavior. Really, take a hint: most people get this. Democrats who think they've found a bully pulpit are wrong. You're going to lose more than you gain by trying to ride the 20/20 hindsight horse to victory. > by his administration. Do you care to refute the evidence or > do you think your empty rhetoric will convince us to ignore the facts? No, I don't care to refute the evidence. I think empty rhetoric will be enough in this case. > I'm convinced by the evidence that 9/11 is less likely to > have happened under Gore. What exactly is it that convinces > you otherwise? I am convinced that space aliens invaded Al Gore's brain and put him completely under their control. When he lost the election, the space aliens realized that invading the brain of the stupidest man on the planet was not enough. They must also invade the brains of every Democrat in Florida if they expected to control mankind. So they left, never to return. What exactly is it that convinces you otherwise? Mike Lee Islamic Moderate _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
