George

As a country that espouses the great importance of "Human Rights," how do you find, kill, capture or contain Bin Laden without killing your own men and Afghanistani women and children?

And ... how does any Administration honestly assess the real danger of a opaque threat like terrorism before it actually happens. It's easy after two towers come down to point fingers, but before 911? If Jordan said they could really hand over Bin Laden to Clinton, what was Clinton supposed to do politically? Tell the world that Bin Laden was a threat to America and lock him up? Talk about a political mess in Afghanistan and the Middle East for Clinton!

So both presidents did what we should all expect, they did not make a tough political decision unless or until it was made for them. George Bush 41 said an interesting thing that has always bothered me. He "wondered" if he had the political and moral fortitude to handle a inevitable crisis that he knew he would be handed.

I've always "wondered" why a President would ponder over waiting to have a problem occur? Shouldn't he seek out the problem and correct it before it occurs?

The answer is that modern politics forces our Presidents to the path of least resistance, because moderate voters are uncomfortable with politicians who have strong convictions. Good Presidents--Roosevelt 1 and 2, Lincoln, Jefferson and Reagan--never waited. They took action.

This investigation, while political in nature honestly may be one of the best in years. We've learned that the CIA and the FBI are wrought with confusion, backbiting and disarray. Of course we knew this before. But what did we do? We waited ... until we found out it was deadly.

- Tyler Sewell (Electronic Mail, March 24, 2004)