Replies

There are several odd things about this story, according to how you choose to see it, or spin it.

The first is that, if we choose to believe the remarks at a "brainstorming session" represent official policy, and were understood as such, is that it would be a rebuke to those who said Bush was not doing anything about Bin Ladin prior to 9/11. The Clintonists are fond of saying that they had designed a plan to take Bin Ladin, but that Bush had failed to act on it. This would indicate the opposite, that Bush was indeed prepared to act.

The other, if you believe it, is that it assumes that at least one of the countries represented at the meeting would pass the information gathered directly to Al Qaeda. Which, of course, is entirely possible

But we know first that Bin Ladin (and Saddam to boot) was involved in the first World Trade Center strike, and we know that he had his people in the US for months preparing for the second strike. This is in no way a response to remarks made at the meetings. They would have sounded to Bin Ladin, and everyone else there, like American bluster that we would never have acted on.

You remember that up until we actually took down the Taliban, everyone assumed that such an attack would be impossible. Everyone assumed that the Talibs and Al Qaeda were perfectly safe in their redoubts.