To: ChinuSFO who wrote (3231 ) 1/10/2004 12:42:35 PM From: Hawkmoon Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 3959 With that data Clinton approached it differently than Bush. He kept the terrorists on the run but never placed the US in an embarassing situation of not finding WMD and Al Qaeda link with Iraq. And that's why the USS Cole bombing, US embassy bombings in Africa, Khobar Towers, and the 1993 WTC bombings occurred, right? They are all Bush's fault, right? Certainly Clinton did it differently. I believe he had several opportunities to cause serious difficulties for Al-Qaeda. The minute Bin Laden declared war upon the US, Clinton should have pressured the Taliban to turn him over... and threatening (or carrying out) military action against them, should they fail to deliver him. In essence, we should not have required a 9/11 event to shock this country's politicians into confronting these organizations and disrupting their operations. Bush, if nothing else, has certainly done this by overthrowing the Taliban and eliminating/capturing many Al-Qaeda operatives. I believe some credit is due for having gone 2 1/2 years without a 9/11 style event, or even a lesser one, on US territory. And once again... you can permit yourself to "feel embarassed" by the French.. but I could simply care less what they think. Who are THEY to judge this country when they sat back and supporting the government that put 300,000 innocent people into mass graves? If you like the French so much, then you should move there.. It's like my dad used to tell me.. "If you don't our family, then you're always free to find another one who will take you in... Until then.. you follow my rules". I'm truly sorry that you feel embarrassed by having US forces fighting and dying in the attempt to create some kind of positive change in Iraq. Personally, I'm proud as hell... Hawk