I sorta figured there was some spillover there.

It's neutrally correct to say that things would have been "different" with a different President, just because of the contribution of personality to the situation. Bush I, Reagan, Carter, all the way back to Washington, each was an individual and would have made somewhat different decisions.

Clinton was always popular in Europe, and so the diplomatic phase might have gone smoother. I couldn't tell you, on the bigger scale, whether Clinton would have gone after Saddam. Apropos another thread about the roots of the war and the Bush Doctrine, it might have made a difference that Clinton didn't have a predisposition to want to get Saddam. On the other hand, who knows, maybe some of that secret intelligence would have led Clinton to exactly the same conclusion.

We'll never really know what might-have-been, we can only speculate.

I think it's important to remember that with many big events, like 9/11, a President's options are limited, and events proceed inevitably. No President, regardless of political party, could have not gone after bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Some things just happen on autopilot.

It's been a long day. Time for a nice stiff drink!

--Robert