History, as short or as long as it can seem, can easily be forgotten. In this case, I never even knew it to be true in the first place, as I either had not seen this story or simply was caught up in the shock of 9/11:

Taleban authorities in Afghanistan say calls to surrender alleged terrorist Osama bin Laden are a "pretext" to destroy Taleban rule in Afghanistan. About 1,000 Afghan Muslim clerics have gathered in Kabul for a meeting to discuss the fate of Osama bin Laden, who is wanted by the United States for his alleged role in the attacks on New York and Washington.

In a defiant speech read out to the clerics, the Taleban supreme leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, said the enemies of Afghanistan view the Taleban Islamic system as a thorn in their eye and are seeking to finish it off.

In his speech to the gathering of the shura (council), Mullah Omar said Osama bin Laden is just the latest "pretext" being used by the enemies of the Taleban to destroy their rule. Mullah Omar said he wished to assure the United States and the rest of the world that Osama bin Laden had not used Afghan territory as a base for attacking anyone. However, the reclusive Taleban leader also repeated his offer of talks with the United States to settle all outstanding issues.

President Bush rejected the call for talks, saying now is the time to act.
There is a bit more at the VOA link: http://tinyurl.com/yfnw5xg

Was it hubris or vengeance that drove Bush's response? Could our nation have afforded then to open dialog to Omar, or had the issue become overcome by events? What if the august body of this Council had existed back then?

A choice was made back then, but I believe that this snippet documents an opportunity we need to go back to, if we are to achieve a decent interval in Afghanistan.