The emerging CW this morning seems to be that both the Clinton and Bush administrations were equally ineffectual in combating the terror threat. This is probably as close as we’re going to get to a critique of Clinton policies. But if the charge is equal inaction before September 11, isn’t it a bit unfair to compare eight years of Clinton inaction with eight months of inaction as a new administration was still getting its team confirmed and in place? And isn’t it a bit unfair to accuse the present team of inaction at the same time it’s accused of excessive action (Iraq)?

And don’t forget: is it fair to exclude the media from the equation before September 11? How much did Katie Couric do to warn America of the terror threat? If she didn’t, then who questions her? Aren’t the media supposed to be our watchdog, too?