I'll take your words to mean Obama is an international war criminal and should be prosecuted, consistent with the views of the left about Bush. I don't share those views, but, hey, the left is in charge now, so, let's start the trials !

Let's see….that would be….FDR.

Rev asks, "Which freaking president was in office when Richard Clarke practically begged him to be concerned about Bin Laden/al-Qaeda?"

Um….Clinton and Bush. Though to simply be "concerned" about Bin Laden is a bit too vague to be actionable.

Here's one for you. Which president had his administration erect an intelligence 'wall', preventing our different intelligence and law enforcement agencies from sharing information, which in turn prevented them from busting Atta and Moussaoui, which would have exposed the 9/11 plot ?

The difference between the Bush and Clinton eras is this:

Bush apprehended or killed hundreds of terrorists, overthrew terrorist supporting and rogue governments, stopped many terrorist plots in the U.S. and overseas, beefed up Homeland Security, enhanced our intelligence gathering, monitored the finances and communications of international terrorists, etc, etc…

Clinton lobbed a missile into Afghanistan the night before the Lewinsky hearing.

Obama is making a huge mistake by continuing, even a little bit, the enemy combatant malarkey in the Bagram case.

Obama is also wrong about continuing Bush's version of "state secrets." Totally unacceptable.

I expect he hasn't had enough time….because NO ONE knew the extent of the Bush-Cheney-Rove criminality…..to come up with a plan to right the numerous wrongs.

If that is NOT the case…then Obama will be constantly attacked from the left…..and rightfully so.

However, the whining about our attacks in Pakistan is just that….whining. If we have a current enemy….it is al-Qaeda. To defeat that enemy, it is necessary, unlike Bush-Cheney, to fight where the enemy is located instead of where they aren't located.

Who in the hell was president when the worst attack on American soil was successfully carried out?

Which freaking president was in office when Richard Clarke practically begged him to be concerned about Bin Laden/al-Qaeda?

Additionally, larry….I noticed you ignored the Clinton "miracle" as defined by your Bush-idolatry standard of 7+ years of "no attacks on our soil". I wonder why you would ignore that? Well….no I don't.

Granted, you won't get that information on the DailyKos or from Olbermann. Gee, I wonder why ?

Bush figured that out before the rest of us and you can't argue with the results–truly genius!

That was the subject, as much as some are trying to change it.

Here's a list of 19 terrorist attacks that were stopped since 9/11.

http://www.heritage.org/research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm

Please point me to any other president who has a better record stopping terrorists than George W. Bush. There isn't even a close second.

Those were in Sept/Oct. of 2001, no? That sure seems like seven plus years to me!

Bush is genius and with the good Lord's help pulled off another miracle, Reverend!

I do love how you fellows cling to those anthrax attacks, though.

And I'm still not surprised.

Double standard to shield Obama. Hypocrites.

Too many factual errors to even respond to….but I'll make an exception for larry, who said this…

" No attacks on U.S. soil in seven plus years! A miracle!"

First….it is not true…unless the anthrax letters were not an "attack" on American soil.

Second….the first WTC bombing took place in 1993, when Clinton was president. There were no more attacks "on U.S soil" until 2001….8 years.
Was that period of leadership by Clinton also a "miracle?"

And what Tbomb said.

He was derided by Hollywood last night for this wasn't he? C'mon, surely Sean Penn and crew are just besides themselves over BHO continuing W's policies.

I don't remember any outcry from the left when Clinton attacked Bosnia and Iraq without the consent of Congress either, for the record. I guess only military actions by Republican presidents are criminal. Military actions by Democratic presidents are acceptable.

The Reverend says we should have left the Taliban in power at the same time he says Obama had no choice but to send 17,000 more troops into Afghanistan to PREVENT THE TALIBAN FROM RETURNING TO POWER. Uniquely Reverend illogic. But what do you expect from a guy who can't figure out we're at war after 7 years of WAR. Two wars, actually. BOTH approved by Congress, as the Constitution requires.

And Rev, as to the sad state of affairs in Afghanistan, what do you think it was like there before under Taliban rule, some kind of picnic ? How quickly you pretend to forget.

There really is no military answer to this law enforcement problem…..even though, at times, the military may be called upon.

Bigfooted military blow-sh*t-up methodology only makes the problem worse, new recruiting made easier.

Holbrooke said last night that he really didn't want to send 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, either, but the country is right on the edge of totally coming apart.

Let's be clear, however. Obama inherited this large bag of sh*t. He didn't make it. He's been president for just a bit over a month……keeping in mind that W. had us in Afghanistan for 7 full years, at the end of which conditions were worse than ever.

Re-thinking the whole 2001 decision to attack the nation of Afghanistan…..I currently believe that the Taliban should have been left in power…..and the U.S. should have put ALL it's efforts into covert coalition strike force operations to actually kill the, you know, al-Qaeda guys.

But no…..we had to be stupid like the Soviets.

I loved your questions and was sure that old Rev would be right there with an answer to at least one of those questions. He didn't even attempt to answer any of them but did manage to attack Bush without mentioning his name. I wonder why Rev was so ambitious to answer you and then failed to do so. I think I know and am sure that if I do, you do, too. We have been reading him too long not to know him.

But don't worry, he has an opinion on it.