From an Associated Press article...
"Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people," the president said.

If one of my buddies is talking about his ex-wife and threatens to "teach that bitch a lesson" before driving off with murderous rage and a skin full of alcohol, I might reasonably assume he's going to do something awful. If I didn't do anything, do you think I could duck responsibility by saying "Hey, if I'd known he was going to shoot her three times in the face at 2 a.m., I would've called the police" and get away with it?

The Bush administration has been very careful these past few days, fighting Richard Clarke's assertion they ignored terrorism and the threat presented by al-Qaida. I'm sure Bush would've defended America if he'd known terrorists were going to use a plane or a bomb or gas or anthrax or even a briefcase nuke. That's a "Well, D'uh!" kind of answer, but it doesn't address whether he was even paying attention to the terrorists.

I'm particularly enjoying watching Condoleezza refusing to testify under oath before the Sept. 11th commission. She's eager to offer some sort of rebuttal to Clarke's testimoy, and I hope they tell her "Thanks, but no thanks" unless she's under oath as well. Otherwise, it wouldn't be fair. This Constitutional principal she's using to justify her refusal to go under oath is a smokescreen because precedent is against her. She can't be forced, but she could do it if the Bush team wanted her to.