Could anyone have predicted 9/11? Probably not. Could anyone have prevented 9/11? Probably so.

The 9/11 Commission Report details numerous opportunities the Clinton administration had in 1998 and 1999 to kill Osama bin Laden. Political correctness and general unseriousness plagued the Clinton administration's efforts to arrest, not kill, bin Laden.

"Early drafts of this highly sensitive document emphasized that it authorized only a capture operation," the report notes of one Clinton-era directive. "The tribals were to be paid only if they captured Bin Laden, not if they killed him."

In February of 1999, a memorandum asked Clinton "to allow the CIA to give exactly the same guidance to the Northern Alliance as had just been given to the tribals: they could kill Bin Laden if a successful capture operation was not feasible. On this occasion, however, President Clinton crossed out key language he had approved in December and inserted more ambiguous language." In other words, the man who wondered what "is" is inserted weasel words to let himself off the hook. Additionally, he bowed to liberal sensibilities rather than the safety of the American people by making it unclear whether it was permissible to kill the Saudi exhile even in the event that efforts to capture him failed.

Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Massoud wasn't amused. "CIA officers described Massoud’s reaction when he heard that the United States wanted him to capture and not kill Bin Laden. One characterized Massoud’s body language as 'a wince.'" "You guys are crazy—you haven’t changed a bit," he is remembered to have said.

When not applying onerous regulations on the method in which bin Laden was to be engaged, Clinton exhibited great reluctance to strike at al Qaeda. On one occassion, Clinton administration officials balked at bombing the terrorists over concerns "that a strike would kill an Emerati prince or other senior officials who might be with Bin Laden or close by."

The report is replete with examples of other squandered chances. "I'm sure we’ll regret not acting last night," the report quotes a CIA operative named "Mike," who criticizes Clinton administration decision-makers for "worrying that some stray shrapnel might hit the Habash mosque and 'offend' Muslims." "The principals, he said, were 'obsessed' with trying to get others—Saudis, Pakistanis, Afghan tribals—to 'do what we won't do,'" the report states. "We should have done it last night," another operative commented. "We may very well come to regret the decision not to go ahead."

The report details no similar embarrassing missed opportunities on President George W. Bush's watch. Unlike Clinton, Bush never made an attempt--even of the half-hearted variety favored by his predecessor--to get bin Laden before 9/11. Eight years of missed opportunities may be worse than eight months of unpursued opportunities, but the fact is that prior to 9/11 neither administration took Islamic terrorism seriously enough. Neither did the media, or the American people. Now we do.

and this is a place that will have to remember a date on a calender for someother reason than to recognize a holiday or a day of religion. this will be a fun one to explain to our children some day huh? even if we capture Bin Laden or kill him trying, will we ever remember that day as much as the day so many people were killed on Sept 11th. the damage has been done and the capture or death of this man wont change everything. it is important that people realize this and never take for granted what we did that day and for all the days,months, and years leading up to the terror,shock, and disbelief of September 11th

Amen, Bob. God forbid in 100 years our progeny say to each other, "You have a happy Patriot Day."

I mean, "Heppy Memorial Day?" What is up with that? How can one be somber in remembering the blood of heroes by saying "Happy Memorial Day." Give me a break.

Be well,

Sponge

Do we really? Have we taken the necessary precautions? I think that many in our government, Norman Mineta to name one, are still too concerned that we may offend a Muslim or two to take the threat seriously.

As this is written, hundreds more illegal aliens are coming over our borders unchecked and uninterfered with.

Our politically correct government that has been pandering to aliens has made it possible for this to continue and has taken away any real authority that our border patrol agents may have had to stop the flow.

This makes it possible for any number of terrorists to infiltrate this country virtually unnoticed.

Until this problem is remedied, along with the of other immigration policies, I don't think anyone can take seriously our government's plans to stop terrorist acts.

Right on Mike...Hey I didn't know "O'B" liked to go skiing.

Does he? Not sure why.

Hey, thanks for keeping us well tuned the other night. Brant and I were going fishing the next day and as drinking and video golf don't mix, it made for a very interesting trip.

My opinion would be that you should get as much 'Q' time as possible. The lower bar was pretty slow.

Cheers

yeah right. Illegal aliens are not a problem. They are a solution to our problems.

DB - you're insane.

Really? Am I? most industrialized nations are facing a string demographic crisis. Thier populations are aging rapidly, and the birth rate is not high enough to replace them. Most nations in Europe, for example, are facing negitive population growth in the coming decades. This situation will be disasterous for thier economies which need a constant supply of labour. The United States, on the other hand, will face no such labour shortages because its young immigrant population will be ready and willing to do the work. If the illegal immigrants who come to this country are given amnesty, then they can begin to pay taxes and fund the US government budget, which includes paying down the debt, paying into social security, and paying for all the wars you Republicans plan in picking in the coming years.

Any student of political science will tell you, Boyley Boy, that poulation is power. The United States isn't the most powerful country in the world only because we have the Repulicans in power, or because we have a free market economy, or because we are a democracy. We are the most powerful country in the world because we are the worlds MOST POPULUOUS industrailized nation. 300 million people and counting. Why is Britan less powerful? 60 million citizens. Canada?30 milllion. Australia? 20 million. Industrialization and population are the two biggest factors in determining a nation-state's power. With all the challenges facing the US in the coming century we CANNOT AFFORD TO LOOSE OUR EDGE IN POPULATION. We must allow immigrants to come to this country because thier presence, coupled with thier high birth rates will keep America powerful by replenishing her human capital.

Is this a crazy argument?

I don't think so. What I think is crazy is all the consrvatives who supposedly care so much about national security letting China, India, Brazil, Pakistan, and Iran to gain a population edge on the United States just because they don't like the fact that most of our immigrants are coming from non-white populations now. You never heard any bitching from the right in the 1960's about letting Italians or Britts or Irish into this country. But as soon as the skins get a little darker, then the "barbarian horde" anoalogy starts be howled.

I believe in immigration. And I don't believe I'm crazy.

I think that opponents of immigration are underminding this country's strengh as a world power, and are nothing short of racist.

Anti-Immigrationists hate America.

DB that is the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard. People who are against Imigration are not racist and they don't hate america. They just might think that americans deserve american jobs. Maybe they are tired of having to learn another way to speak just to get ahead and a crap job like mcdonalds even. I am against Illeagals go through the process and get in here leagally and Im ok with it. Learn to speak english and I am ok with you. This is america.

Daniel, I agree with you that all immigrants should be required to learn english upon entering this country. That was the law in the nineteenth century.

I disagree that immigrants, illegal or not, are a great threat to American jobs. A much greater threat is the unabated outsourcing to various nations that the Republican party supports, and the cuts in education and job training that the Bush administration has made.

The reason why America recieves so many illegals is because our legal cap is set too low and the process is amazingly slow and bureaucratic. Reforming immigration policy is nessacary to require that these needed immigrants can get into our country unmolested.

i don't anyone here can refute the argument that without immigrants the United States is in danger of facing a ageing, delining population. And if that danger is realized then the United States could very well loose is dominance in the world.

We need more Americans in this world. We should on focus on Americanizing those who have chosen to come to our country. We should not isolate them and terrorize them with threats of deportation and racist idealogy. Only by marginalizing our recent arrivals would we truly create the barbarian hordes who are hostile to our country.

dB your immigration policy sounds like a theory from the early 1900s.

Do you actually think having a population the size of China is an edge in anything other than ground troops? And to think that this is a flaw of the conservative policy because China has a billion plus population is really funny. You should take a trip and experience this edge yourself because they have serious issues to resolve even though they have remarkable economic growth. You think the balance between employment and productivity gains is tough here add another 500 million workers to the system.

It also seems as though you conveniently forgot how formidable Japan (128 M population) is in the worldwide economy and others will be such as South Korea. The reality of the global economy is that those who can capitalize on inventive ideas will be better off then those that cannot which takes the right mixture of people, ideas, knowledge, entrepreneurial spirit, capital, and a government of the people that tries to maintain a fair playing field.

Without the correct balance what you have is an industrialized nation with millions of impoverished laborers working for a ruling class that will eventually fail. Does this sound familiar?

Kem, I listed population AND industrializaion as the two most important factors in dertemining power on the world stage. I realize that population alone does not garuntee power, and that China's recent upsurge in power is the result of economic growth.

This is all the more reason that the United States must maintain or grow its population. Faced with a rapidly industralizing nation of one billon the US cannot afford to loose momentum in EITHER poulation or GDP growth.

Your example of Japan actually PROVES MY POINT. Japan is the second most populous industralized nation, and has the second highest GDP.

Of course you could point to small nations such as Singapore, Hong Kong and argue that they are successful. But they are not world power like the United States. To be a world power you must have a high population realitive to the population of other nations. For the United States to maintain its level of realitive of population it must rely upon immigrants and the high birth rates they bring.

No DB, I was right. You are insane.

Even countries like lowly France have recognized that they can't be a receptacle for every third world country who has population to spare.

The Third Worlders that most developed countries are attracting are doing very little for their economies and have in fact proven to be a huge resource drain.

Couple that with the reality that the new immigrants (legal or illegal) refuse to assimilate and work hard to maintain cultural and social differences, and it turns out to be a lose / lose.

In any number of ways (this issue being one), we can't continue to be providing welfare to the World.

To stay on point, the more that we allow to flood into this country, the less secure we are as a nation.

Your bs is astounding. And your reference to "cultral differences" smacks again of racisim.

Glad you didn't accuse me of racism.

I looked up racisim and it is defined as "one who is resaonably tolerent of race".

Next time, just call me a stinky bum.

I have no idea what you were going for there. But whatever comedic device that was, it was to sophisticated for my little brain.

True DB, you have no idea.