Well, even though Kevin's question is hypothetical, I'll add some facts...

al Qaeda was formed in 1988 (guess who helped)

USS Cole is attacked on Oct. 12, 2000 killing 17 sailors.

Mid December 2000 our government establishes a link between the Cole attack and al Qaeda.

Also December 2000, Armed Islamic Group, an affiliate of al Queda, is caught smuggling powerful bomb materials across the Canadian border into the US (Washington state). Our govenrment is on high alert and determines that terrorist organizations will continue to try to smuggle weapons into the US using drug smuggling routes through Canada and Mexico. It is deemed that the borders are wide open and provide easy access and escape routes for terrorists. Tom Riley from the office of National Drug Control Policy says "If you wanted to smuggle bombs into America, there is a ready-made network to do that. It's the drug network."

January 2001, Incoming Bush administration is briefed about Cole situation, the incident at the border in Washington State, and the problem with the established terrorist drug trafficking network. They are made aware that we established in 1998 and 1999 that the following terrorist organizations have formed cells and networks in the United States: Abu Sayyef Group, al Qaeda, Egyptian Ga-mat Islamia, Hamas, Hizballah, Hizba-Tahrir, Islamic Jihad, Jamat Muslimeen, and the Taliban.

February 2001, Bush administration deems it inappropriate to launch an attack against al Qaeda. Comment's like "swatting flies" and "no sense of urgency" are thrown around. Only three and a half months have passed since the attack on the Cole. It's still fresh in the publics mind.

March 2001, CIA links bin Laden to attack on Cole.   

Now, I could go on here and add additional info. Before some Bush supporter slams me here, I'm not...I repeat not...trying to say that Bush could have prevented 9/11. I am however certainly trying to establish that there was quite a bit of frightening information on the table for Bushco as they took office. It also was the Bush administration's responsibility to respond to the Cole attack...not the Clinton administration's. I point that out because ignorant people like Ann Coulter like to promote the idea that "Clinton did nothing" which was not the case. The Clinton administration found out with only a couple weeks left on their watch that al Qaeda was responsible and combined with the bomb smuggling incident made the incoming Bush administration aware we had a serious problem.

I'm not trying to make Slick Willie look good either...I did not and do not care for the guy. Those are just the sad facts.

To answer your question though Kevin, I think based on the information above...which is just a quick snapshot...I think Bush could have easily presented that info to the American people and said "We need to do something right now about terrorism and we know they are based in Afganistan, so we'll start there."

It was clear, and made clear to the Bush administration, we had recently discovered a serious issue with terrorism in our country. Bush took over with us on high alert for terrorist activity. Yet, why no sense of urgency? Just weeks before he comes on the job we catch terrorists moving bomb components across the Canadian border...shouldn't priority number one have been to work to improve our border situation?

So, Bushco did a great job selling the American people a war with Iraq...do you think from the list I gave you above that they could have used those sales skills to sell us a "War On Terror" in March or April of 2001?