Let's see, Reagan trains Bin Laden and his followers, and supplies them with weapons, and that's OK.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, this were true, what would it matter? That was then, this is now. What you're no doubt referring to is bin Laden's involvement with Maktab al-Khidamr (sp?) -- which was used by CIA in the covert actions against Russian occupation. Big Deal! As I said, that was then, this now. Two totally different, unrelated times and sets of circumstances. It is interesting how the liberal mind sort of loses track of time, almost as though all these events exist in the same time.
Bush Sr. fails to finish what he started in Iraq, and that's OK.
Bush 41 did exactly what he should have done in the Gulf War, not a bit more or less. If he had it to do over again, given the same circumstances, I have no doubt it would be done in precisely the same manner. He was 110% correct in his actions.
Clinton can't convince the Sudanese to extradite Bin Laden - and that is a horrible failure.
The Sudanese were willing to hand him over lock stock and barrell. And yes, by this time, Bin Laden was deeply involved in terror attacks on the United States. Clinton's failure was huge.
I'm not sure why you're having difficulty with this. It seems pretty clear that Reagan and Bush had nothing to do with it, and that Clinton failed miserably to do what he should have. |
