In response to:

NY Times Reporter Accuses Bush of 'Negligence' Regarding 9/11

HoovervilleFollies Wrote: Sep 11, 2012 6:28 PM
So the bottom line here is that no amount of evidence will ever convince the Right that Bush was negligent and no amount of evidence will convince the Right that Clinton was anything but negligent. That's the way it is with cults. Faith over facts.
Cuban Peete Wrote: Sep 11, 2012 6:54 PM
Sort of like still blaming Bush for the economy nearly 4 years after FUBARack inherited it, no?
Drifter33 Wrote: Sep 11, 2012 6:31 PM
Learning_Community_Party Wrote: Sep 11, 2012 7:09 PM
Class, here is another example of not wanting to hear anything that does not confirm current beliefs.

On this solemn day, most of the nation mourns the loss of life that occurred on this day eleven years ago and contemplates the changes that have occurred since then. Most, but not all. Kurt Eichenwald, contributing editor for Vanity Fair and writer for the New York Times, published an inflammatory op-ed accusing former President Bush of not preventing the attacks:

“While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks...