Clinton did order a lot of cruise missiles shot at Osama bin Laden and his training camps. Unfortunately, those missiles really didn't do a lot of real damage. Those camps are easily evacuated and rebuilt. We're trying to do things differently this time. According to Newsweek, when Bush met with the senators from New York and Virginia a day or two after the attack, he said that he wasn't going to "launch a $2 million missile to take out a $10 tent and hit a camel in the ass" or words to that effect.

That just goes to illustrate how difficult it is to fight this kind of war. I do give Clinton credit for trying but the truth is launching a lot of $2 million cruise missiles at a bunch of tents isn't an effective strategy. Before Sept 11th, I doubt America would've supported sending in Special Ops forces into the region regardless of who was president. Without those highly trained troops on the ground, the chances of getting bin Laden are very slim.

And without going down that rathole again, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree about the importance of prosecuting a sitting president for lying under oath. I personally take that very seriously and apparently, so does the US Supreme Court.