I found this paper very interesting:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~debbieki/PS498paper.html

>I didn't say Bin Laden - I said 'Terrorists'. Reagan and Clinton both
>made limited attacks on terrosists. My point was that someone said
>Clinton should have dealt with them. How? Invade afghanistan. 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.
>
>And I agree that Bush is now trying to take out Bin Laden. That is good,
>but I also agree with Kerry in that Iraq is a distraction from the real
>goal of destroying terrorists.
>
>>>These terrorists should have been dealt with under Reagans's watch.
>>>
>>>Clinton did the sdame thing Reagan did - a few small controlled attacks. But
>>>no major invasion.
>>>
>>
>>I don't recall hearing any information that Reagan's men told him they could take out Ben Laden, or that he was known to be a threat at that time. It sounds like you are a Clinton apologist, of which he needs many. At least under Bush, we are trying to take Ben Laden out. According to Dick Morris, Clinton's right hand man at the time, he passed because he was afraid of public opinion.