So Bush ignored the message "Bin Laden determined to attack", Does it really matter??

[pnwmom]

145. I don't remember the details, but there was something that caused him to be

detained, and the screener said he wouldn't have released him if there had been an alert.

And that was only one instance. It's hard for me to understand how someone could make a serious argument, given all that we know now, that Bush putting the FAA on alert couldn't have led to a better outcome.

Here's another article on Bush ignoring many warnings. How could any President ignore warnings of a "spectacular" attack?

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/11/13809524-evidence-piles-up-that-bush-administration-got-many-pre-9-11-warnings?lite

There were more details, as laid out by one of Tenet’s top analysts, known in the book as “Rich B.” Tenet recounts his aide telling Rice and others, “The attack will be ‘spectacular.’ and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities and interests. ‘Attack preparations have been made,’ he said. ‘Multiple and simultaneous attacks are possible, and they will occur with little or no warning. Al-Qaida is waiting us out and looking for vulnerability.”

SNIP

"Would action by the White House have helped? Like Eichenwald, Cressey says he isn’t sure, but notes that when similar intelligence pointed to attacks on Jan. 1, 2000, “Sandy Berger (Rice’s predecessor) and (President Bill) Clinton went to battle stations.” Did warnings prior to the millennium help thwart a number of attacks back then? Cressey believes they did."