Bill says he's "full of regret" that he didn't get bin Laden. No doubt, as he continues to watch the vestiges of his "legacy" spin down the old crapper.

"I thought that my virtual obsession with him was well placed, and I was full of regret that I didn't get him," he said.

I can't stand to watch Larry King, but I'd be willing to bet that this statement was not challenged in any way by the sycophantic softballmeister.

"Virtual obsession"?

Like when he told the Sudanese to ship him to Saudi Arabia instead of taking custody of him? Like when he sent a few cruise missiles into empty Afghan terrorist camps? Maybe such ineffective and inattentive actions are why he calls it a "virtual" obsession. It's certainly not the mark of a real one.

We know what his real obsessions are, and they have nothing to do with either terrorism specifically, or national security in general. And amidst all the big-money speeches, and mindless fawning females, he no doubt continues to indulge them.

Perhaps, in line with Greg Hlatky's suggestion over on A Dog's Life, we should promote him to the American House of Lords, where all the Peter Principled Policitians go.

How does it compare with Dubya's non-obsession? Whether it was the time he slipped away into the mountains, or over into Pakistan, or when he got his rumored kidney transplant, Dubya just hasn't made it much of a priority to get Osama, prefering instead to get Saddam, because he, well, because he's bad, I guess. I am real f-ing tired of hearing about how soft Dems are on the war front, when our fearless, ruthless Republican leader doesn't seem all that interested in getting the one guy we all agree has got to go.

Paul, what makes you think that he isn't already gone?

Do you really believe that once we have counted coup with Osama's scalp, that the war is over? We aren't fighting a man--we're fighting an ideology.

"Virtual obsession" -- Is that something like pretending to be obsessed, when you know really aren't? Of course, he reserved his real obsession for the truly evil among us-- defeating Republicans.

I'm still waiting for Osama's July 4th statement. The one they said was coming in late June. This guy was too much of a publicity hound for me to believe he's been around all this time and hasn't said a word. If he's not dead, he's too busy running for his life to do anything else, and I'm completely ambivalent as to which is the case. Better to make his job harder by removing regimes that might harbor him and his kind. Regimes, like... hmm, let me see... Iraq.

Even better than getting Osama, we got Abu Zubaydeh. Osama's just a figurhead, Abu was the major tactical planner and recruiter.

I too wish we'd used our boys instead of Afghan troops so that we captured more people, but a lot of that has to do with the military being gutted by Bush's predecessor.

Considering the hand he's been dealt, Bush has done a far better job than Clinton. And if you read Lilek's bleat for today (wednesday 9-4) you'll have a good clue as to why.

I don't believe this ends with Osama, and I think there is a reasonable chance that he has already gone the way of the Dodo, but the argument from absence doesn't hold water. OBL went quiet after other major attacks, and resurfaced when the opportunity arose. The car bombing today in Kabul is likely Al Qaeda work, and may signify a new offensive. My brief with Dubya is that I don't think the war on Al Qaeda is over, and I think he and his buddies are underestimating the threat. I hope I am wrong.

I see no evidence that the Administration thinks that the war with Al Qaeda is over. They're just choosing their targets carefully. Saddam is a part of the network.

I guess if he knew if he admitted to having a real hardon for bin Laden, what kind of discourse might follow.

Paul,

The whole "kidney transplant" story ranks up (down?) there w/ "no plane hit the Pentagon," and "there's spider eggs in Bubble-Yum." So far as can be seen, there is no credible evidence that ObL was ever admitted to the rumored hospital, much less that he met w/ CIA, Deuxieme Bureau or MI5.

Moreover, failing to hit a specific target is a bit different from not even trying. Did Bomber Harris' failing to nail ol' Adolf w/ Bomber Command mean Churchill was as negligent as Chamberlain?

I think part of the problem folks have w/ Bill (vice Dems in general) is that he HAD the opportunity AND the basis (WTC, embassies, Cole) to go after ObL---and all he did was fire cruise missiles (including, bizarrely, at Sudan). I don't blame him for not according higher priority to ObL at the time---many of us did not think about terrorism on the scale that we could/should have.

But the bigger problem we have is the post-hoc "I did all I could"; "I was obsessed w/ getting ObL, even then"; "I warned them that this was the most important issue around" kind of line. THAT is what bugs many of us.