When Bush was president he received briefings about non specific threats from bin Laden and his terror network and the possibility of an attack. There were no specific plans or timelines and the briefing was no different than what had been given to Bill Clinton. There was a threat but when, where, and how were not defined.
The attacks of 9/11 came and the left blamed Bush. They claimed he ignored the warnings from the brief and went on vacation. Bush was to blame, according to the left, because he did not stop an attack that he was briefed about. The fact that the brief was non specific and did not pinpoint any information that could be used to stop the attack made no difference to the left because Bush was to blame. It is like Katrina. The local and State government of New Orleans and Louisiana failed miserably but Bush was to blame. Some claimed he blew the levees on purpose and that he steered the storm to that spot.
The tenth anniversary of 9/11 is a few days away and security has been heightened because of the potential for attacks. Obama has been briefed on a non specific threat that indicates the terror network is working on using car bombs in DC and New York to attack Americans on or around 9/11. The brief is non specific and includes no real actionable intelligence. It is about the same kind of warning that Bush received.
So if, God forbid, we are attacked on 9/11, would Obama be to blame for not stopping it?
I did not blame Bush and certainly would not blame Obama. But the left was all over Bush and held him responsible so if we are attacked would Obama have the same blame since he has received the same kind of briefing for which liberals hold Bush accountable?
I hope we are not attacked but one never knows. Despite the denial by the left, there are people who want us dead.
Never surrender, never submit.