I totally agree with you, TG, so don't think I'm contesting your point. But I've always been confused by the bolded as a criticism of Bush. I've always thought, well...at that point, when the towers were burning, what could Bush really do? I assume that the other flights leaving that day had already been stopped, intelligence bureaus were already in the process of looking for suspects, etc. Am I missing something?

I definitely wonder why Bush hasn't received more criticism for essentially ignoring the Clinton administration's warnings about Al-Qaeda. If he hadn't, there'd be no reason for people to harp on about how he just sat in that classroom...
Originally Posted by mandatoryfun

I think there's a real perception out there in America that our president should actually be, you know, Commander in Chief of our armed forces. When Bush was informed of the possible attack, shouldn't he have gotten up or something? Taken charge? Manned the battlestations? Anything but continue reading My Pet Goat.

I think at least half of America thinks that Bush f*cked up royally with ignoring the threat of Al Qaeda. The middle eastern countries mostly already hated us prior to that, but Bush succeeded in making the rest of the world hate us too. We've criticized him for it. Remember the "I'm sorry world" website where millions of Americans recorded "I'm sorry" messages when Bush was re-elected in 2004? Many of us have been very ashamed to be Americans for a very long time now.