A couple years ago, stories like this one were common place. Hannity, Rush, and church mouse guy all blasted Clinton for not catching bin Laden with the latter claiming, "He cannot revive his reputation since Nine Eleven because we now know that he was too busy with his girlfriends to take care of US security." Even so, assuming that Clinton willfully ignored chances to catch Osama, after bin Laden bombed both our embassies and the USS Cole, why did Bush ignore, "dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission"? (New York Times) In fact the Associate Press says: And The Telegraph adds: It would appear that if anyone had plausible reason to believe that bin Laden should be taken seriously it was the man who Presided after the '98 attacks. Now the scenario becomes, if Clinton flopped by not paying attention to a potential threat then Bush flopped all the more so by not paying attention to an actual threat. While conservatives lament Clinton's record on bin Laden they should ask themselves: who has the greater sin... the should-have-been-psychic or the should-have-been-historian?