Except that they did no such thing. The 9-11 plan was put into action,
both in logistics and training, long before Bush took office. Also,
take a look at Bin Laden himself; for example, his declaration of
Jihad against the US was in 1996, when Clinton was in office. Also,
the Millennium plot was attempted against US targets while Clinton was
in office. (911, it must be remembered, wasn't the first Al Qaeda
attack against the US homeland. It was merely the first successful
one.

Chuck, I do not want you to take offence at my words, but I can think
of no other way to say this: Did *YOU* not hear what their oft-stated
demands are?

They are too numerous to mention in detail, but I'll leave you with
this little gem, from Bin Laden's post 9-11 "letter to America", in
the full translation:

"(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we
calling you to, and what do we want from you?"

"(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam."

"(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from
associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love
of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the
discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which
contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and
makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all."

Please note that this is his FIRST demand. He goes on to say
"If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for
fight with the Islamic Nation."

So, it's rather clear that Al Qaeda has a great many demands. So, did
you not know them, or do you in fact, as your words imply, support,
amongst other things, the imposition of Islam upon the United States,
and the replacement of the US constitution with Sharia law (as
explicitly stated by Osama Bin Laden)?

I certainly have heard what their demands are, as I make a point of
reading their utterances in the full translation, as opposed to the
"condensed" versions incompetently regurgitated by the media. The
press reports are bad beyond comprehension, and leave out nearly
everything. For example, I have never once heard mention in the Media
of Bin Laden's demand that the US sign the kyoto protocol, or his
expressed revulsion that we let Clinton "get away" with his sexual
misconduct in office.  

Al Qaeda's demands are not limited to Bin Laden's statements, as they
use several publication routes: internet, media, newspapers, etc. It's
also very important to keep in mind that their demands and statements
do not in most cases reflect their true goals, but rather their
interpretation of pragmatism.

For example, in listing his perceived US offences against muslims, Bin
Laden cited the US actions in Kosovo as a reason why the US should be
attacked. Of course, the US was fighting there to protect the Muslim
Kosavars from the Serbs, but we got blamed anyway.

Also, Al Qaeda's stated objection to the House of Saud was the
quartering of "infidel" troops in Saudi Arabia. Yet, their attacks on
Saudi Arabia began in earnest after said troops had left.

Al Qaeda's goals are nebulous, but one key is an understanding of the
concept of the Caliphate, which Al Qaeda (including Bin Laden himself)
have often referred to. They clearly want a new Caliphate, and all
that that entails. It's helpful to read the pronouncements of Sheikh
Abdullah Azzam,  Bin Laden’s spiritual mentor. Under his
interpretation of the Koran and Hadiths (a not uncommon
interpretation) their immediate goals are a restoration of the
Caliphate, to rule over all muslim lands. The key here is that they
define Muslim lands as any lands once "under the green banner". That
does (they have said so explicitly) include all of present day Spain
and Portugal (hence their frequent references to Andalusia, the Muslim
kingdom that once ruled that area), part of France, and large parts of
Eastern Europe.

For longer range goals, they have stated explicitly their objection to
Western culture and laws, practiced anywhere. What they wish is
nothing less than the destruction of Western Civilization.

Incidentally, speaking of their demands, how do you feel about their
demands vis-a-vis Israel? Or better yet, their stated goals regarding
Andalusia?

Sorry, but you are very much mistaken.  See above.

Are you saying that we shouldn't have gone after them for 9-11? That
we should have just retreated?

I consider that ball to have been dropped at Tora Bora, but that's
just my opinion.

That was indeed one of the basic tenants of the isolationist movement
of the 1930's. The only problem was that it couldn't work then, and in
the global economy of today it makes even less sense now.

I wasn't born until the late 60's, so of course I have no direct
knowledge of the FDR administration. However, I've long been a student
of history, especially the maxim that if one does not understand the
past, one is condemned to repeat it.

Yes, a near exact analog to the accusation that Bush knew about 9-11
in advance, with similar motives. Rarely does history have such direct
correlations, but this one is near exact, right down to the Pearl
Harbor commission, a Congressional investigation with enormous
parallels to the 9-11 commission.

The interesting thing about the Pearl Harbor situation was that
Roosevelt certainly did have reason to suspect an attack, given the US
embargo against Japan and their oil situation. However, he had very
little reason to expect an attack at Pearl Harbor, which was
mistakenly thought to be outside the operational radius of the
Japanese combined fleet.  It was also believed that Pearl Harbor was
too shallow for aerial torpedoes, which is true. What they overlooked
was the British use of plywood breakaway fins at Taranto when faced
with a similar situation, which is exactly where the Japanese got the
idea.

BTW, do you know who is was who came up with the operational concept
for the pearl harbor attack? It was the US Army (except for the
torpedo alteration and use). The Japanese, in a "goodwill" move, were
invited to observe the annual Army-Navy war games, and the Army that
year (sometime in the late 30's, but I'm too lazy to look it up)
attacked down the central valley of Oahu from the North. Evidently,
the Japanese were very impressed. Oops.

That IMHO retreating after Pearl Harbor would have been identical to
what you propose, and in the long run equally suicidal.  

With the exception of the Taliban regime, which was the partner of Al
Qaeda,  you are correct. Pakistan's ISI (Intelligence service) was
after all virtually the founder of the Taliban. This set off a virtual
civil was inside of the Pakistani government when the US forced them
to choose sides. Mushareff, however, is not a supporter of Al Qaeda,
as evidenced by the fact that they have attempted to assassinate him
on at least three separate occasions.

As for Saudi Arabia, that's even more complex. The House of Saud rules
as an alliance, dating back 200 years, with the Wahhabist clerics. The
Wahhabist sect of Islam is quite radical, and was the genesis of Al
Qaeda. Many of the Wahhabist clerics in Saudi materially supported Al
Qaeda (with both money and recruits), and still do. The House of Saud
tried to play both sides, but after a few Al Qaeda attacks against
them have largely turned against Al Qaeda. However, their crackdowns
on Al Qaeda have been largely conducted with kit gloves, to avoid
estranging the Wahhabist clerics upon whom they still depend.

No, actually, it isn't. You are I believe referring to the fourth
amendment, which I will paste below:

"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What I am getting at is that it does not list communications, even
those available in that day such as mail. Therefor, a wiretap, as it
occurs outside of a person's home and property, is not covered by
amendment IV.

I'd prefer a constitutional amendment, but I'd settle for a law.
However, I'd want it to apply to corporations as well as the
government: I feel that there are a great many abuses from both.

Many people do, and in general I'm one of them. To me, it certainly
fits the prohibition against being forced to bear witness against
oneself. However, I do support it in a few narrow situations, such as
part of the hiring agreement for certain critical occupations where
many lives are at risk. For example, airline pilots.

I don't see it as any of anyone's business what an employee does on
their own time, but if they are either using or impaired on their
employer's time, that is certainly grounds for firing IMHO, and for
people such as airline pilots where impairment endangers thousands, I
think it's allowable to require pre-agreement to random screening for
drugs and alcohol impalement as a condition of employment.