[Cowgirl of Justice]

I thought Syria called Clinton back in the 1990s and told him they had OBL in their sights, would he like to do something about it. I seem to recall that Clinton didn’t answer in the affirmative.

And didn’t someone in the US military, post 9/11m also have OBL in their sights, but refused to give the order to kill him as ‘It just didn’t feel right’?

[Reily]

It was the Sudan.

They even offered to arrest him and hand him to us on a silver platter. The Clinton DOJ couldn't figure out how to prosecute him so they said no. Also Clinton did place much priority on it. Not the type of foreign affair that held his interest.

The key thing to remember regarding Rats and GOP views concerning terrorism The Rats view it strictly as a law enforcement problem. Has to be prosecutable so intelligence community information is mostly inadmissible. Also remember in law enforcement you arrest and prosecute after the crime. So the crime has to be committed you have to absorb the attack and accept the damage and casualties first. (Tough noogies if its your friends and family!) GOP’ers tend to view it as a military and intelligence problem, you have a lot more latitude in your actions if you keep it in that realm. Meaning you have the option of hitting first rather then being hit. And using intel assets you might be able to hit first subtly, silently and surgically. (And hitting back in this way doesn't always mean killing people and breaking things!)

In my opinion if you are at the stage where you have to use violence to recover the initiative, you have already let it get too far out of the box. (I know sometimes its already out of the box before you know about it!) As the old Heinlein quote goes, "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent!"