Well gee whiz vdibart... if you're going to make my arguments for me, I might as well pack up my Tinker Toys and go home :)

Personally I would have preferred a WWF-style smackdown. I think Bill could've taken bin Laden in 2 rounds.

Quite the arguement. I had the chance to speak with Scheuer during last weeks AQ 2.0 symposium at the Russo offic building. He comes across quite differntly then Clarke who appeared to be whoring for the media. Scheuer main concerns seemed constructive rather then destructive and carried himself with quite a bit of modesty. The one thing he appeared to desire was a sincere debate in the United States about foreign policy.

For the person who said that we were the ones that rained and funded Bin Laden: SHOW ME YOUR SOURCE. From my understanding we never trained or funded the Arab fighters in Afghanistan.

Again, where was the public outrage? Where was the Congressional outrage? Was Clinton personally supressing it?

You said it best. No one took it seriously enough.

You're right Cassandra. Bill Clinton should have personally suited up and killed bin Laden with his bare hands. That appears to be the only way he would be able to escape blame for the 9/11 attacks. I mean, he's a Democrat, therefore anti-American, right?

Later in your post you're relying on Clarke's testimony to prove that "Bush had formed a policy and was moving forward – there just wasn’t enough time". But in the post above that you say "Richard Clarke’s statements to the 9.11 commission, which contradict themselves in innumerable places". Which is it? Is he dependable or not?

In any case, do you know why Clinton couldn't attent CIA briefings? Because he was dealing with an impeachment hearing forced by Republicans in Congress.

Look, I'm not saying Clinton was perfect. I'm saying that we *all* underestimated the thread before 9/11, including Bush, Clinton, Congress, the New York Times, myself.... I don't think it's fair to pin it on Clinton any more than it's fair to pin it on Bush. Neither does it help anyone to say Clinton could have prevented it, when the 9/11 Commission finds points that both the Clinton and Bush administrations could have caught it.

1993. On Clinton's watch. The same building is attacked and he does nothing.

[whistling]

But Clinton bears a lot of the blame for that, too.

After all the man took ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in the first WTC attack. He wanted no part of any suggestion that terrorists were to blame.

And we all know (or at least some of us do) where the planner of that attack fled to and made his permanent home.

Dang, vdibart... now that you put it that way, you're absolutely right.

They should have known...

What is the evidence that he failed to take it seriously? ...as opposed to Clinton's taking it seriously?

Doing nothing? Clinton also did nothing.

And is your argument also that Clinton didn’t explicitly tell the Bush administration about bin Laden (also not true), therefore Bush can be excused for not doing anything it?

Again, evidence that Clinton told Bush about bin Laden? What was that? "Hey, this guy's a real threat - of course I DID NOTHING ABOUT HIM, BUT NOW THAT YOU'RE TAKING OVER, I REALLY THINK YOU SHOULD?"

According to Clarke's own testimony (have you bothered to read it, or are you just making this up as you go?), Bush had formed a policy and was moving forward - there just wasn't enough time. Try reading his testimony.

...my argument is that if you’re going to criticize Clinton for not doing anything, Bush deserves the same treatment.

That's just plain silly. Clinton during his second term had everything in place and yet could not (according to Clarke) be bothered to attend CIA briefings (again, on Clarke's advice!, according to HIS OWN WORDS).

Then we have Bush, just coming into office... and the standard set ahead of time is... do nothing.

By your argument, they are EQUALLY CULPABLE. That's nonsense.

Anyone who takes over a new job knows that in the first few months you don't turn everything upside down - you get your bearings and see what was working in the old policy and then make changes. It takes that long just to figure out what is what.

But you want to hold a guy who is brand new at his job and doesn't even have his team in place equally responsible to a man who had 8 years to assess the sitrep and already had all his players in place.

Right. That makes sense.

Who armed and trained bin Laden in the first place? And who let him metasticize his fight against the Soviets into a jihad against the U.S.

Hint, think of presidents between Carter and Clinton.