This is out of order but bear with me.

In my first post...dated 09-04-2003 04:29 PM my first quote was the US state department in 1945, so i'm assuming your talking about Michael Parenti's quote "The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology. " Is this the quote you are reffering to?

Thank you for finally answering the question. Look, i'm not trying to defend everything Clinton did. He ****ed up.. in ALOT of ways, but so have MANY other presidents. The fact remains that FBI investigators were already tied up analyzing a stain on a dress. Like i said..i'm not blaming bush for the terrorism, but it was the right wing playing politics that wasted valuable recources in the first place. MAYBE he could have signed an executive order, but I'm not sure of the steps the agents would have to take to be able to just switch what they are investigating. I would actually like to know if it could just be done. Unfortunately, I would need to know someone in the bureau to get this information, and i don't.

Please quit jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth. I never said he did all he could, but he did try. We knew Osama was a growing threat (we didn't know how devastating he would be 5 years later), and we definately wanted to catch him. Unfortunately Sudan was regarded as a terrorist state, one which we had sanctions against. They wanted to turn over DOCUMENTS about Osama and his goons....not Osama in the flesh. Your taking things out of context.....example.."they handed Osama Bin Laden to the US on a silver platter." Its not that simple. We couldn't just bring Osama here to try him, so we wanted another country to try him ( I believe Saudi Arabia). Unfortunately for whatever reasons the talks failed (maybe the same reason the intelligence community failed leading up to 9/11), Osama had a large network in sudan, including training camps and ALOT of money and funding both from supporters and from the Sudanese Government. We figured if they kicked him out of his "central command" and froze his accounts then it would be the next best thing we could do to capture him (Where we failed was when we "lost" him and he ended up getting his money back once he reached Afghanistan). A quick analogy (COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL). Say before the war, Iraq agreed to turn over all of its weapons of mass destruction, and did not try building them again (with an international force to verify they were cooperating) in exchange for Saddam to keep his life. Would it be worth it if he continued to give al queda funding? Its not the best analogy, but that was the situation we were stuck in with Sudan. And if you want to blame it on Clinton himself (it was his administration who handled most of this information) then it would be just as easily to blame Bush himself for the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11 and war with Iraq. They had a plethora of information that Al Queda was planning something big on US soil, but on 9/11 Condoleeza Rice hadn't gotten to the Intelligence information (which had been on her desk for several weeks) yet. It was just as much Condoleeza Rice's fault for not focussing attention on the threats to americans as it was Madaline Albrights fault for tripping up talks with Sudan.
But its the administrations mistakes you blame on Clinton himself (i guess thats how being the president goes) so I should be able blame Bush for his administrations mistakes.

I KNOW FOR A FACT...this one is going to get the "LIBERAL BIAS....BLAH BLAH BLAH", but hey choose to believe it if you want (but considering its foriegn media they have no reason for bias....so it must be 100% fake). This story was never played in america...probably for a very good reason, but it got quite a bit of attention in Europe. Where there is smoke there is fire, and there is a hell of alot more than smoke here. Remember those 28 pages blacked out of the 9/11 investigation?
Well check out this article from the BBC's Newsnight.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm
First he limits the FBI units assigned to trace leads about al queda funding. Then he personally asks Tom Daschle to limit the investigation into the 9/11 attacks, and finally...the investigation is over. But wait.....there are 28 pages blacked out of the investigation. IS BUSH TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING? Common sense should raise some suspicions in anyone's mind. Can you justify why Bush would want to limit the investigation of al queda funding....or if you don't like that because its from the bbc, can you justify why he personally asked Tom Daschle to LIMIT THE 9/11 INVESTIGATION? Wonder why the media didn't give this much coverage? Probably cause the media is all liberal right? Liberal media would never want to give much coverage to a possible conservative cover up would they?

Ok onto the polling subject. your www.pollingreport.com is just a collection of mainly cable news opinion polls. How are these Inaccurate? Well for one, anyone with just a little advanced computer knowledge can win any internet poll they want. Then there are the 'bots' that vote (however, most of these are filtered out...depends on the site though). Finally, check this out.
http://slate.msn.com/id/68660/

I'm almost possitive i haven't covered everything, but i'm going to bed. I'll cover anything i missed next time i'm on. (i'm not at the top of my game right now, if i've made mistakes, or made little sense i'll correct it then)