Well said, Splichy!
There was a naivety and ignorance towards terrorism amongst the people. I don't believe that any high ranking government or intel official was either naive or ignorant towards terrorism pre-9/11. They simply had their hands tied when trying to get resources to fight a "war" that is not recognized by their consituents. The action that Clinton took to remove Bin Laden was scorned...not because it didn't work, but because most didn't understand why we were wasting time or money. Mogadishu was the same thing. Ultimately, the politicians answer to those that brung em (hopefully that is the voters).
If you look at the cold war, you will see that the government had the support of the people due to the perceived threat posed by communism/Soviets. Many people had never heard of Bin Laden or al Qaeda prior to Sept 11. Why? I am not sure. I guess it never really hit home prior.
I would also add to your last comment concerning what the Clinton admin did, that without the actions of the Reagan/Bush-I admins, Bin Laden would just be wealthy construction magnate...and Saddam would never have had any weapons (although he isn't directly pertinent to this discussion).
Were those mistakes by the Reagan administration? In hindsight, yes. At the time, it was debatable.
Al Qaeda was created from a countless number of influences. It could be surmised that the initial seed was the methods by which the middle east nations were divied up by the Brits, et al. Who knows?
Dr. Rice's testimony is important due to the public accusations made about her. I believe she should have the right to decline questions declaring certain security concerns.
I hope I didn't start a little war. Just some thoughts. Please just take this as a perspective.
Now get out and vote!!!
Max