First off, the quotes in the document were to rebut Mr. Berger's statement that there was "...nothing in the 9/11 Commission Report...to support this portrayal and the fabrication of this scene..." which I believe is, at the very least, a misleading statement. As the 9/11 Commission report excerpt clearly shows, the mission was scrubbed, and at least one person (James Pavitt, the assistant head of the Directorate of Operations,) who believed that Mr. Berger was the source of the cancellation, although possibly based on Tenet's recomendation. Therefore, the 9/11 Commission report does contain information that supports the possible mission. Whilst I agree that they *may* have dramtized (or even over-dramatized) the possible scene in question, it's a little hard to present a mission that was planned over a number of months and probably debated endlessly in a two night mini-series. Hence, the action was compressed into one scene that shows the same overall effect.
To address your second statement: "If this plan, like in your quote says, was never presented to the White House for a decision, then how could they have turned down this request that was never requested?" "They" I assume being President Clinton? Well, it's really rather moot as Mr. Clinton's actions or inactions are not addressed by the quoted paragraph of the 9/11 Commission report. When Mr. Berger said that the plan hadn't been presented to the White House, one would know from the rest of the description of the planning of the mission as reported in the earlier unquoted section of the report (and I highly recommend you read the entire report, or at least that chapter if you can be bothered) that Mr. Berger himself was fully aware of the plan and that he claims he never passed it up the chain. However this is moot as the statement in the report rebuts his statement of "In no instance did President Clinton or I ever fail to support a request from the CIA or US military to authorize an operation against bin Laden or al Qaeda." [emphasis added]
As for being a Democrat in Arizona and not having to "hide"; congratulations. I am glad to see that the great state of Arizona is accepting of people with different political viewpoints. Unfortunately San Francisco really isn't. For all of it's much ballyhoo'd "peace, love and understanding" mantra, this city is more like a totalitarian nightmare that is completely unaccepting of anyone that is not parroting the party line than the utopian dream it purports to be.
I would recommend you come live here for a while to see what runaway liberalism can do to a place.
Here are some past postings of mine about San Francisco:
"Only In San Francisco"
Tilting at Windmills
While it does have some (ok, a LOT) of "adult language" in it, I think that this one probably sums up my personal politics and feelings about San Francisco and the Bay Area the best: