No, it really isn’t reasonable unless you decide to analyze the events through hindsight. Even then you conveniently fail to provide context. Such as Bush was coming off one of the most divisive elections in American history with little mandate to do much of anything. conditions were so hostile he was struggling to fill positions in his staff because Democrats were keeping their appointment backed up in committee. This is a man who entered the WH with “W’s ripped off keyboards.
Yet you seem to be under the illusion there was some smooth transition where he peaceably went to work and should have been able to 1) deduce this threat superseded all the other threats on his desk and 2) persuaded a divided republic to take action.
It was never reasonable to blame GWB for 9-11 and no one ever did until several years later because Democrats wanted to break that glow he had around him and win elections again. It was a cynical tactic that paid some dividends but to see it repeated in a Republican primary is a disgrace.
You want to disagree with the decision to go to war, fine, but you go down that road of blaming GWB for 9-11 and you deserve to be called out.
So Bush couldn't do anything cause a few jerks stole the "W's" from his keyboard?
Where is the evidence that this happened, since GW failed to reveal what those cretins did to the people's house we will never really know will we?
Did you know Bill Clinton is now an adopted brother to GW?