I'm no fan of Bill Clinton. I also believe in the Jacksonian Doctrine towards war, viz. it should be all "off" or all "on". However this criticism towards Clinton's use of cruise missiles against the embassy bombings is pure 20-20 hind sight. It begs the question: "What would have been the correct military response?". Mind you, the correct military response would have been based upon the information that Clinton had when he made the decision and tempered by a perceived political reaction/cost. American public opinion would not have permitted Clinton to do nothing. However, the bombing of our African embassies by a semi-anonymous terrorist group would not have provided adequate grounds to issue an ultimatum to the Taliban and then crush them if they refused to obey. Also asking the Taliban to try bin Laden before an Islamic kanagroo court would have been utter stupidity (guess what the verdict would have been?). One might criticize Clinton for not destroying al Qaida by covert means or having bin Laden assassinated. However even there, he was banned from such action by Congressional prohibition against assassination, etc. As I see it, there was no historical path that avoided destruction of the World Trade Buildings except for the FBI/CIA getting lucky and uncovering the conspiracy before it happened.

Gary