There's been a huge wedge between what the analysts think and what the Bush administration wants them to say.
The thinking was that he (bin Laden) was in Afghanistan, and he was dangerous. But because he was there, we had a better chance to kill him
But at the end of the day, we settled for the worst possibility -- he was there and we didn't do anything.
is pretty close to being inevitable.
You'll have to ask the lawyers.
Frankly when I resigned in November, there wasn't anyone.
They have always been almost puritanical in talking about setbacks.
The exposure of such, either firms or aircraft, just undoes years of cover building and makes America weaker.
We asked the president what we should do with the people we capture.
It proves two things. He's not dead. And despite all the things we say about him being isolated and alone, he can clearly dominate the international media when he wants to.
And if that's what the American people want, then that's what the policy should be, of course. But the idea that anything in the United States is too sensitive to discuss or too dangerous to discuss is really, I think, absurd.
It's not a choice between war and peace. It's a choice between war and endless war. It's not appeasement. I think it's better even to call it American self-interest.
The war in Iraq - if Osama was a Christian - it's the Christmas present he never would have expected.
Saudi Arabia was, until just a few years ago, probably one of the most safe countries on earth. And now the paper is daily full of activities and shootouts between Islamists who supported Osama bin Laden and the government there.
I'm much better informed than Mr. Clarke ever was about the nature of the intelligence that was available again Osama bin Laden and which was consistently denigrated by himself and Mr. Tenet.