>Reagen should not have left afghanistan in the state it was after the cold war
Which is a major point for the terrorists. They felt we abandoned them.

This is a pretty thorough misunderstanding of the al-mujahadin. They took our training and weapons but the last thing in the world they wanted was us in Afghanistan after the Russians were out. For our *own* best interests we should have maintained a presense, but that would have exacerbated conflict with the Salafi even before the gulf war.


>>These terrorists should have been dealt with under Reagans's watch.


Reagan had a cold war to finish. He did a very good job of that. Islamo-fascist terrorism was not the issue at that time. By the time Clinton came along, anyone who'd read Bernard Lewis or Daniel Pipes would have at least had an inkling. And after the first WTC it should have been mandatory reading. I know Wolfewitz and Perle read them.

>>>Clinton did the sdame thing Reagan did - a few small controlled attacks. But
>>>no major invasion.

But Clinton did not have terrorists with USSR patrons. He just wasn't very involved with foreign policy issues. It amazes me a man so obviously intelligent could be so ignorant as to never meet one on one with Woolsey for the whole time he was DCI. That pretty much tells you how engaged he was on the issue of terrorism - even after the first WTC attack at the beginning of his presidency.