Jeff -

I'm not familiar with the Vanity Fair article, but if I recall correctly, Clinton attributed his reluctance on legal reasons. I thought it was because he didn't have enough evidence to have bin Laden extradited and held - especially since he's part of Saudi royalty, who we pander to on an obscenely regular basis.

In retrospect he screwed up. But at the time, especially considering the mind-set pre-9/11, he would have been hammered by the right, accusing him of distraction from the Lewinski thing, and the left would have cried foul for jeopardizing foriegn policy.

That's one of the problems with this "war on terror" right now. It almost forces us into a reactionary mode, especially now that the splinter groups have become so autonomous. We're now seeing what being in a preemptive mode and "taking the fight to them" is costing us, both in lives and dollars.