Health care . . . we should probably ask some of our Canadian and British posters to comment on their experiences with their respective national health care systems.

Will, obviously 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, so he doesn't get a "pass". However, we do have to remember how long he'd been in office, and what happened during the previous administration. Which means we can't give Clinton a pass for not taking action in response to the PDB that told him--2 YEARS before Bush took office--that AQ was planning to hijack aircraft. Think what might not have happened on 9/11 if cockpits had been hardened by then. AQ might not have even attempted the attack in the manner they did. Or think what might not have happened on 9/11 had Clinton ordered the CIA to go after Bin Laden, aggressively--to include assassination--after the African embassy attacks. Again, over 2 years before Bush took office. Then there's also the fact that the CIA's training program for operations officers--the guys that collect intelligence and engage in counterterrorism operations abroad--had been cut to its lowest level EVER under Clinton. That's something Bush could not correct in 8 months in office, since it takes a few years to produce a fully-trained, language qualified ops officer. There were also significant cuts in the military under Clinton.

Comparing Bush to FDR, the latter had already taken significant steps to build up our military prior to Pearl Harbor. But he'd also been in office for 9 years by the time we were attacked. Still happened on his watch--and he didn't have a bunch of damage to his military and intelligence assets to undo, as Bush did. In summary, while I don't blame either FDR or Bush, given the different circumstances, there are far more places to spread the "blame" in Bush's case than there are in FDR's.