And what then happens when this bi-partisan committee has overturned every stone, uncovered every worm, possibly ended long term intelligence gathering operations, followed every paper lead possible, and it STILL finds that there was no 'conspiracy'? That the decision making process leading up to the events of 9/11 was flawed, but that ultimately even within genuine police states if someone wants to commit a terrorist act they can and will, given time and resources?
I agree completely that there should be an in-depth committee that sticks to those guidelines laid down - I and just about everyone else on here has never said that there should be anything else, but do you actually want a committee that might come back with something that doesn't blame a single individual, or organisation, but comes back with a story of politics and incompetence?
Well perhaps thats true Bees. But Bin laden was of Americas biggest enemies for years. He was notorious, not the extent he is now of course, but I remember growing up in the 90s hearing loads about him. He was very active indeed. Even striking the US.
Of course you know this, but it is worth making the point that if the Neo Con administration told CIA to concentrate on Russia, and reduce surveillance on Al-Quada, then this is in the very least pathetically incompetent, and possibly more.
Well competence is not something that one has come to associate with this administration, but even within the intelligence community there will always be debate over who presents the primary threat. Given the way Russia is now using natural resource as an extentsion of foreign policy, arguably Rice's POV that Russia was still a bigger player is correct - hell, if the US had just left it's adventurism at Afghanistan OBL, AL-Q and the rest of them wouldn't be the global issue they are today.
Under Bush Snr, Russia and the Colombian drug cartels were bad guys no. 1. Under Clinton it was whomever he thought might present a threat that week until the WTC bombing - indeed, at one point it seemed that
internal threats were likely to be more of an issue (Oaklahoma, the backlash from the mis-handling of Waco).
At the end of the day intelligence is about making a call on what to act on and what not, and in a governmental system that has agencies with overlapping responsibilities, conflicts of both personality and policy and many roles staffed by political appointees the processes behind making those decisions will never simple or transparent, unless you can find a good telepath anyway.
