Well, the whole "Bush Knew" flap has hit Sullivan's site and as anybody who was paying attention could tell, he's spinning in favour of the president.

So far as I can tell, there were no specific threats, no suggestion of commandeering planes to use as missiles, nothng that could be differentiated from any number of such warnings before or since. John Ellis is right about this.

Really? That's interesting, considering that Media Whores Online quoted this story on bloomberg that seems to imply that the warning did happen, and with enough specificity to be taken seriously. Pardon me if I don't take Donald Rumsfeld spinning like a top on Rush Limbaugh seriously as an answer to this. Rush isn't going to criticize, and Rumsfeld wouldn't answer criticism. Rush was just trying to help Rumsfeld take the heat off: they talked about the scandal for only as long as necessary to dismiss it. Most of the Rush interview was about Crusader and Iraq.

Do I think Bush actively covered it up or was directly responsible? No, I don't. If there was a systemic failure in the administration, though... if this could have been prevented, Bush should know that the buck stops with him. That's his job: he's the one that takes the credit, and he's the one that takes the heat. I doubt he will because his handlers don't want him to, but that's what the job is supposed to entail.