[tonyinv]

Thats not the point. We would not have had enough "evidence" against the 19 hijackers pre 9/11 either. Condi clearly stated that there was no actionable intel.

But thats not enugh for the libs. They are the ones who posit the theory that had we gone into afghanistan in the summer of 2001 that that would have stopped 9/11. They are the ones who started the "only if" game.

Today they have no problem using shaky intel to justify some sort of action pre 9/11. But back then when Clinton could have clearly taken out UBL, they themselves needed alot more evidence and proof.

Its the double standard that they shouldn't be allowed to get away with. Dont give them the benefit of the doubt that they ruthlessly refuse to afford President Bush.

[lugsoul]

How can that not be the point? Why would billyjeff's refusal of the alleged offer be of any significance at all if we couldn't do anything with him?

As far as pre-9/11 goes, you are missing the point. At that time, we DID have proof that OBL had attacked us - the embassy bombings at a minimum. We even tried to cruise missle him. But prior to the embassy bombings I still haven't heard anyone say anything that would justify us taking him down.

I don't see the divide as January 2001 (i.e. Clinton / Bush). The divide is August 1998. Before that, we had no knowledge that he had attacked us. After that, we did.

I am downright amazed how this issue has become so politically charged, on both sides, that people won't deal with the facts.

[lugsoul]

"We would not have had enough "evidence" against the 19 hijackers pre 9/11 either."

Come on. We had photos of two of them at an al Qaeda planning meeting. We would've traced their funds, tapped phones, etc - would've been an easy conspiracy case to put together.

Think Lackawanna Six.