It wasn't an asprin factory.

Is someone jamming Al Gore's programming, and replacing it with sheer idiocy?

Surely he isn't implying that the attacks would not have happened had he been president?

The very thought gives me a severe case of nausea...

So, it sounds like you are agreeing with Gore's statement that there were warnings before 9/11.
So which statement are you disagreeing with?

Oh look, it's Darryl. My ex-blogroach has found a new place to infest with his non sequiturs.

But I'll answer your question. No one has, in fact, denied that there were warnings of an impending terrorism attack before last September 11th. That isn't the issue at all -- at issue is the fact that actual terrorist attacks on American personnel and soil (as in the embassy attack) occurred during Gore's and Clinton's watch, and their response to it was rather lame.

Does that help?

"Harf" at people trying to defend Gore's recent rhetoric. Talk about a thankless task.

And don't defend Gore by carving on a stone tablet...he'll be turning his ship around before the Iowa caucus.

Don't forget the 1995(?) "warnings" out of the Philippines and the 13 planes they were going to try and blow up/hijack.

For the last time, who the hell is Al Gore?

Bush had a plan on his desk to attack al Qaeda September 10.

Clinton? Well, Time magazine told us he had a plan... oops, now his natl. security advisor says that's bogus.

Shoot, even most members of the DNC are refusing to defend Gore...even his ex-running mate. I'll at the very least credit them with having at least enough sense to know Al dropped a stinker of a speech.

Andrea,

How nice to see your sweet and charming limericks. I seem to remember quite a bit of terrorist activity going on during the Reagan years, and silence after death of 241 Marines in Beirut, and several high jackings. Clinton was all over al Queda and gave Bush a detail report on bin Laden and al Queda which this masterful military strategist chose to ignore. The cruise missile attacks in response to the Cole bombing destroyed two al Queda facilities He thwarted the millennium attacks, he hunted captured and convicted the first World Trade Center bombing terrorists, and he would have been more active if he were not so busy defending against an attempted ‘regime change” by a clan of hysterical fundamentalist republicans. You can fly from truth as hard as you want, but you cannot escape its presence. Gore and Daschle are exposing the truth, and the truth hurts liars the most. You can weave your yarns all you want and regurgitate the homilies of Rove and Lundquist until you are blue in the face and the truth with remain unchanged. No matter how you slice it, Bush is politicalizing the War and opportunistically marketing to patriotism to win republican votes.

I guess I didn't get the memo that this was alternate history month.

Yikes! Andrea is under attack in the comments section of VP's blog!

First, dim Daryl shot a troll-chewed rubber arrow at her. And now Tony the tiger wets his pants before hurling a dud at her; an argument that ignors history and all of those annoying rules of the English language.

With critics like these, Andrea (whoever the hell you are), your biggest problem probably concerns how many fingers to use in response.

Tony, you're now arguing against Sandy Berger (as well as common sense), who says no such info was turned over to the Bush admin.

Boot Scotty: For the last time, who the hell is Al Gore?

Former vice-president, future nobody.

Tony,

Clinton didn't stop the millinium attacks, it was done by intellegence agencies. When Bush became president did all democratic CIA and FBI officers quit and hand the ropes over to Rebulican officers? I think it's neat that Clinton destroyed two Al-Queda facilities. If there is one way to stop terrorism it is to destroy facilities. Too bad Bush had the balls to sends troops to defend freedom when we could have just destroyed thier facilities. He could have done it the right (and easy) way with a couple cruise missles. Why would he subject himself to critizism from the peaceful democratic party? Does Bush really say things to pliticalize the war or is he just fustrated that leftys don't care about freedom?

Nobody, that's what I thought.

There are two historical events/issues that, I believe with each passing day will be looked at with increasing disbelief in that America did almost nothing to resolve:

1. Our head in the sand in the 1990's with regards to al Qaeda; and

2. Allowing hundreds of Americans to rot in an Iranian hole during the Carter administration.

We owe it to the hostages who lived, and to the victims who died, to always consider overwhelming US force when American lives are in danger.

Ed. -- I have no problem at all deciding how many fingers to use in response to my, er, "critics": one. The middle one. (On either hand, but as you might have guessed I favor the right.)

Oh, and Tony, for the nine-hundredth-millionth time, it's "politicizing." Not "politicalizing."

Actually, I think the worst you can do to Darryl and Tony is to ensure that their comments remain here as posted. Rarely in history have others made weaker arguments with smaller regard for spelling and composition. I think that the idea that these guys take themselves seriously is funnier than practically anything that could be said about their arguments, such as they are.