I am writing about the recent news sparked by Richard A. Clarke and his book, Against All Enemies: Inside Americas War on Terror. In the book, Clarke talks about many issues, one of which states that President Bush was told of possible attacks in America by al-Qaida.

I was just involved in an argument with a friend (who, by the way, is anti-Bush) who strongly feels Bush should be blamed and held responsible for ignoring this intelligence on al-Qaida. I think this is simply ridiculous. An attack with such a magnitude as 9/11 was simply not foreseen by anyone at the time. Other al-Qaida attacks on America included embassy bombings in Africa and the U.S.S. Cole bombing in the Middle East. These attacks were fairly small and happened halfway around the world. They also all occurred during the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration; yet, my intent is not to blame either president.

Bush took office in January 2001, and only nine months later, 9/11 occurred -- a significantly small time for a newly-elected president to gain intelligence, raise support, mobilize forces and possibly attack a country such as Afghanistan, unless a significant event such as 9/11 were to occur.

I support all the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I believe in what the United States is doing. If we've learned anything from 9/11, it is that you cannot sit back in the world and let your enemies conspire against you.