One of the more reasonable takes I've seen on this.

Hindsight, as is so often said, is 20-20.

It's easy to beat up on policymakers about how 9/11 could have been prevented (nor would killing UBL on September 4th, 2001, even if it had been achievable, likely have meant 19 hijackers wouldn't have slammed planes into the WTC, Pentagon and Pennsylvania countryside a week later).

But I trust most Administration critics, when they are alone and taking a real, honest look at themselves in the mirror, would admit that we were all tragically caught off guard on 9/11.

From George Bush, George Tenet and Paul Wolfowitz; to Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, and Al Gore; to a Cantor Fitz trader, a FDNY firefighter, or an illegal Honduran busboy working in Windows on the World.

Given this reality, it's hugely unfortunate that one of the biggest tragedies in American history is metamorphosizing into a political foodfight.

Why not call an end to all the partisan rancor and conclude, roughly, thus:

The Clinton Administration's approach to al-Qaeda was too timid, too legalistic, too episodic.

The Bush Administration's (pre-9/11) approach to al-Qaeda was likely overly influenced by traditional realist security hawks (with a dollop of neo-con thinking thrown in) overly emphasizing state actors as compared to stateless transnational terror groups.

Put differently, there's enough blame to go around.

The hearings were, in the plans of the Democratic Party, supposed to provide a weapon to take away the "national security" issue from Bush, and with any luck, also stick him with the blame for 9/11.

As the hearings proceed, it isn't turning out that way. The Democrats are beginning to realize that making the failure to deal with al Qaeda into a political weapon is just as likely to shoot their own party in the foot. The conclusions reasonable people are beginning to reach are very similar to those in the quote above.

Keep watching.