You know, I almost added to my previous post, "And if you say it was OK then but not now because there's a war on, then go fuck yourself". But I thought that was unfair as well as vulgar, surely you weren't going to resort to that.

After all, it was the GOP back then that was at the forefront of accusing Clinton of merely "wagging the dog" in taking any action at all against Al-Queda or Saddam. Criticize him if you like for not doing enough, there's a case there, but you might find it instructive to look up the statements of GOP leaders Trent Lott regarding any of CLinton's military action from Feb 1998 to the Kosovo War. YOu didn't see many -- maybe not ANY -- GOP members of Congress suggesting we take serious action in Afghanistan in Aug of 1998. On the contrary, they argued Clinton was just trying to use this terrorism thing to distract attention from the important issue of whether there was a lie about a blowjob. In September of 2000 Jack Kemp had a WSJ op ed in which he predicted that Clinton would try to "wag the dog" before the election, most likely using terrorism once again as an excuse. And from what I can tell, concern over "October Surprsie" accusations was part (though only a part) of why Clinton did nothing after the USS Cole bombing in October.

But I underestimated your hypocrisy, Tom.

Go fuck yourself.