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

[leveymg]

148. I've read the major works that argue for foreknowledge, but find them unconvincing. Not so for 9/11

where the evidence of detailed, step-by-step U.S. agency complicity and facilitation of the attack under the command of top Bush Administration officials with the knowledge and approval of the President is overwhelming. The only thing we don't know is intent. It could have been a counter-terrorism operation that went hideously wrong, or some equally grotesque effort by the Bush Administration to avoid offending the Saudis.

The comparison with 1941 is not apt. There was some warning of attack plans given to FDR and General Marshall in November and December 1941 -- the Japanese naval code had been cracked -- but there is no evidence of actual complicity by US officials or obstruction of defenses in preparation for the strike. Quite the opposite. There were multiple attack warnings, and many positive efforts to prepare for the assault on Hawaii and other potential Pacific targets, and they were extensive, but inadequate. These are some major differences.

No, the comparison is not apt. Please tell us how it was otherwise.