This NY Times story, State Dept. Says It Warned About bin Laden in 1996 ends with this:
“The thinking was that he was in Afghanistan, and he was dangerous, but because he was there, we had a better chance to kill him,” Mr. Scheuer said. “But at the end of the day, we settled for the worst possibility – he was there and we didn’t do anything.”
It accidently forgot to include this:
Clinton strikes terrorist bases
THE United States launched cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan yesterday against centres allegedly linked with the terrorist bombings of two American embassies.
With about 75 missiles timed to explode simultaneously in unsuspecting countries on two continents, the operation was the most formidable U.S. military assault ever against a private sponsor of terrorism.
… Clinton and his national security team linked both sites to Osama bin Laden, the exiled Saudi millionaire tied by U.S. intelligence to the twin bombings on Aug. 7 in Kenya and Tanzania. The bombings killed 12 Americans and nearly 300 Africans.
… The president made no apologies for ordering the strikes without permission from Afghanistan or the Sudan, saying, “Countries that persistently host terrorists have no right to be safe havens.”
… Clinton presented several reasons for the decision to act swiftly and forcefully, rather than to punish bin Laden through the means of diplomacy and law. Repeatedly he said bin Laden presented an imminent threat, quoting his pledge this week to wage a war in which Americans were “all targets.”
Oops, the Times accidentally left that part out…
Update – Never forget that the Republicans reacted to Clinton attacking bin Laden by accusing him of doing it for political “wag the dog” reasons. (And here.)