Tarmar--good one; in all seriousness, though, Clarke hit the nail on the head during MTP yesterday when he pointed out, quite bluntly, that a) he's quite certain that we will nab Bin Laden sometime over the next 6 months, HOWEVER, b) capturing him, while a Good Thing, will not make much, if any difference in the war on Al Queda at this point, because it'll be 2 years too late--as Al Queda has, since 9/11, morphed into a multi-headed hydra with dozens of cells operating independently...
...which is essentially the same point that Dean made after Hussein was captured: yes, he's a scumbag and it's good to have him in custody, but it hasn't made us inherently safer as a result. Of course, Dean was blasted at the time for making this rather obvious observation, just as he was blasted for commenting about the theory--one which, every day, seems to be more and more plausible--that Bush had knowledge of the 9/11 attacks prior to their occurance.
Of course, the concept of "having knowledge" is a very fuzzy thing. If this is defined as "there are terrorists who are plotting to attack U.S. citizens", then that's hardly a major scoop...but extra precautions should have still been taken. If it's defined as "Saudi-born terrorist members of Al Queda are planning to hijack U.S. airliners and fly them into the WTC & other major U.S. population centers sometime in the fall", then it's gross incompetance at best and criminal treason at worst to have allowed it to happen.
The testimony & evidence of the FBI whistleblowers, David Kay, Paul O'Neil and now Richard Clarke are pushing the needle closer and closer towards the second definition. Might also explain why Bin Laden's family was allowed by the U.S. Government to fly around after 9/11, during a general ban on air travel.
This is heavy-duty stuff, no matter what point along the line the truth proves to sit. The Bush admin is in deep, deep trouble, and Rice is doing them no favors by refusing to testify under oath (especially while simultaneously appearing on every TV show on the air to protest how inappropriate it would be for her to discuss the issue).
I know that I'm new at this stuff, and I'm sure that Lango et al will be more than happy to point out every error in my reasoning, but it's starting to become quite clear to even the Republican base that something *very* ugly has been happening in the White House the past few years. Kinda puts covering up a blow job and a shady real estate deal in perspective, I'd say (and for the record, I did vote in '92 and '96, and it *wasn't* for Clinton either time).
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
