Three years before Pakistani terrorists struck Mumbai in 2008, federal agents in New York City investigated a tip that an American businessman was training in Pakistan with the group that later executed the attack.The impression being left that since the attack occurred and people died, the FBI failed or was negligent or even complicit. There's no mention of Bush but the inferences are there--he was president.
Yet buried deep in the story (page four of the WaPo's internet version) is this paragraph:
As the plot took shape in 2008, U.S. anti-terrorism agencies warned Indian counterparts at least three times about a suspected Lashkar plan to attack Mumbai, according to Indian and U.S. officials. There has been speculation in news reports and among anti-terrorism officials that the United States got that information by monitoring Headley, either as an informant, an ex-informant or a suspect.Emphasis added for obvious reasons. In other words, we probably did have the guy under surveillance but because Headley was dealing with our 'ally' in Pakistan it was a fairly sensitive operation and remains so today. But after reading only the first two pages how many people would be left with that impression?