host

I thought that the determination by the non-partisan GAO, that, after 6 years, there was still no coordinated plan implemented by the executive branch to use all resources of the government to eliminate the Bin Laden national security threat, was shocking.

Considering that the president has spent all or part of more than 900 days of his total time in office in either Crawford, Camp David, or Kennebunkport (130 days per each of the past 7 years...), and still is reviewed in this scathing way by the GAO, how is his judgment and priorities to be defended?

Can support for the president, in light of the GAO report combined with the amount of time he is reported to have spent away from the white house during his presidency, be put into words?
I don't see limiting vacation time to less than a record setting level, for the duration, and developing a comprehensive plan to counter Bin Laden, as unreasonable expectations of a "war president", by the population he purports to be "keeping safe".

Doesn't this information contradict much of the justification made by the president and vice-president, in the 2004 election campaign, for the voters giving them a second term?

Aren't the very same people who support the president, supporting a successor to the president who promises to follow the same policies as the president? How do they justify doing this? Is justification based on the effectiveness of the current president?

Is there even an attempt at justification?