One problem I always see is the lack of organization in arguments about how the Bush administration failed on 9-11. Here is an idea, when trying to explain how 9-11 could have been prevented, break it down into 4 areas to place your information based on where the 9-11 could have been stopped.
- In Afghanistan. This may not be a winner, but it is often confused as the whole argument by right wingers. According to Richard Clarke, if all of his suggestions made in January 2001, regarding actions against Afghanistan had been followed, 9-11 would still have happened. Ok, however, many Bush apologists point at the part where Clarke says 9-11 would still have happened while conveniently leaving out the part where he is talking about action against Afghanistan only. Be aware of this.
- In the US during the planning stage. This is where all those FBI memos and warnings come into play. As well as that pesky increased intelligence chatter that failed to spur any action. This is also where Richard Clarke explains going to `battle stations' could have stopped the hijackers. This is where many members of the Bush Administration went on vacation, so keep that in mind if someone tries to claim they were at `battle stations'. Snide comments about Bush learning that his battle station was best filled on vacation was learned in the Air Guard may or may not help your case.
- At the airport. This is where knowing Al Qaeda was planning on hijacking planes could have been met by increased security and awareness, yet airlines and airports weren't properly warned.
- In the air. This is where the Sky Marshals could have been increased due to increased risk, and when military action could have been taken, but was oddly lacking.
This may help deal with some of the confusion that is usually brought up when discussing 9-11.