Depends on the circumstances of the attack. If it should come out after the attack that there was a proposed plan for stopping the group behind the attack that dated back from before the Bush ascendancy but was ignored because it wasn’t a Bushie who came up with it, or if there was intel on a hefty percentage of those who perpetrated the attack which was ignored, or that a briefing advising of the likelihood of the attack was presented to them and they took a month off right before the attack anyway, well then maybe I’d consider that to be sort of their fault.
That is illogical. raises eybrow is Spock-like fashion
If it is their job to prevent an attack, and an attack happens, then they failed their job. They may have done all anybody could, but they still failed.
If no attack happens, that could mean they prevented it, but it could also mean no attack was attempted.
Elementary, my dear Shodan.