"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. "

I'm tuning this whole thing out. It disgusts me.

Uhhh, how about in 1999? 2000?

Well, the opportunity had passed. UBL was no longer in Sudan.

This one statement to me defines the root cause of 9/11. Treating terrorism as a criminal issue instead of a war. Yesterday, time and time again, I heard people say "We weren't on a war footing" or "We were on a war footing". Well, the policy at the time is that it was a criminal issue, so I can see where the confusion comes from. Inconsistant message.

If there any doubt in the present administration as to what the "footing" is?

The criminal issue thing is probably the reason the Agency had 20 translators, etc.

I think the FBI is going to take the majority of the intel failure blame. At least that is the way I see it shaping up. And personally, I think they should. The FBI needs to get out of the International terrorist catching business. They aren't good at it. They think like prosecutors.

Why was UBL not implicated in the first WTC bombing?

Why did the investigation of OKC end with Nichols?

Evidence and IMO conviction rates.

They were at war with us and we were trying to investigate them for jail.

Its like investigating Yamamoto for conspiracy after Pearl Harbor.

Scary thing is, Kerry is talking about doing it again.

IMHO, it didn't take 9/11 to justify what we had to do eventually in Afghanistan. After it was obvious that he was responsible for those others attacks, we should have demanded he be turned over or given the govt's shielding him an ulitmatum of the form that came after 9/11. I agree about the criminal interpretation of terrorism. It is that interpretation that justified our govt throwing up their hands at the futility of pursuing him once he had retreated behind the border of a nation like Afghanistan.

No, they didn't go after him in 'Stan because they never tied him to WTC 1. They blamed it on that blind cleric and he's in jail. Case closed. I think you're right, they wouldn't have done an invasion of 'Stan to arrest one man. Arrest being the key word.

Its about the legacy. The Dem Presidents all want the Nobel Peace Prize. Its what they live for. Its why they meet with Arafat and the Israeli PM at Camp David. Did you know Gorbachav won it for "helping end the Cold War"? LOL - Reagan had nothing to do with it?

The Nobel Peace Prize is the epitome of Europhilia and UN approval. Why do you think Clinton sent troops to Kosovo and Haiti? You think he gave a shit about those people? Those are the kinds of actions that get you the prize.

If he had taken UBL from Sudan, I think he would have sent him to The Hague.

I agree with everything above. My point was that it is high treachery to be this way.

I think more than treachery it is stupidity and a failure to understand the world. Root cause - liberal professors in Universities and the closed nature of their society.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRe...d=123-04142004

This will go over like a turd in the punch bowl!!!

BMT

The committee keeps trying to blame the hands for the mistake the head (Clinton admin.) made. Even if some information was withheld (from Tenet questions- OBL was involved somehow in Operation Restore Hope etc), the fact that an coherent organization was willing to attack America was still conferred to the POTUS. As has been said here, it was policy which reduced the abilities of the intelligence community, not their own pig-headedness.

Do you think reforms should be made to the agencies in question?

That's all IMO, not a statement,

Solid