Really? So you mean my post wasn't an attempt to argue otherwise? How strange.
I read a lot of "I think" in your post but no cold hard facts or reasoning. So "I think" you can shove that in your pipe and smoke it. Come back to me with something worth arguing. Using Clinton or Gore as examples of good presidency? Fuck's sake, Gore didn't even get to prove it (although I think he would've been a good president) and you have no idea what Clinton would've done in the same situation, to say otherwise is mere speculation. The truth of the matter is Clinton or Gore probably would've responded to 9/11 with a couple of missiles launched into Afghanistan, and that's it. So they would have no other issues to contend with but Katrina. Entirely different situation.
It would, of course, help if you could read. I merely stated that priority-wise Katrina ranked lower than the war. Oh, and the Hurricane WAS handled poorly. But not by Bush. It wasn't his job to handle it, that was Nagin's job, and he fucked up royally. In fact noone's logically stated a damn thing Bush could've done in the event.
He was on top of both events, as best he could be. Try and come back with something other than another "blah blah blah" post with no substance, ok?