and has many bad things to say about the "dangerous radical " Reagan.

And he says stuff like this about Bush "In the meantime, the Bush administration put virtually no money or effort into actually combatting terrorist cells in places like Morocco, as opposed to putting $200 billion into the Iraq war and aftermath."

Yet he fails to say anything about Clinton’s failure to fight terrorism, despite being attacked 4 times under his watch. And wasn’t Clinton the president between Reagan and George W. Bush? Yes And isn’t this professor covering the timeline between Reagan and George W. Bush? Yes. And is this professor conveniently omitting Clinton’s record during this time period. Yes.

I stand by my statement that he is being biased in this article. He is only writing bad things about one side while sweeping under the rug the bad things his side did.