We're comparing two people running for president and the fuckups the right ignored to elect Bush in 2004 compared to what they accuse Hillary of fucking up. I've yet to see a lucid argument for why it was perfectly ok to elect Bush as president in 2004 after failing to protect America on 9.11 which led to 3,000 deaths but not ok to elect Hillary as president for failing to protect a consulate overseas which led to 4 deaths.To compare a standing president to another IS fair but not a standing to a runner. If you want to compare George to Bill at least that's even BUT they BOTH have zero to do with HER and HER actions.Umm ... Bush wasn't a "runner" in 2004 following 9.11 and many of those attacks on U.S. consulates and embassies???Now you try to bring Bush in because he WAS president at the time of an attack. Argument STILL fails BECAUSE you are asking to compare a STANDING president to a "runner". Apple vs Orange.Bush held office when there were other attacks on consulates and embassies and other diplomats who were also granted that same promise of protection.He held no office nor had any say. he is NOT relevant to the issue. HER actions HER works HER time in leadership.
The right saw fit to turn the other cheek following 9.11 and every attack on U.S. consulates and re-elect Bush.
If you want to render Bush irrelevant to this discussion, you'll need a better reason for why Bush was still qualified to run for office following the worst terrorist attack in the U.S. in our history which resulted in 3000 dead, but Hillary is not qualified following an attack overseas which resulted in 4 dead...
Is that the best defense you can muster?
bush was in office 8 months when 9/11 happened. The "prevention" should have been done by Clinton, and it wasn't. That attack was planned and resourced long before Bush took the oath of office.