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