If *'s team had "done something" against terrorism in the 90's...

[JHB]

This came up in the GD:Election forum, but it has wider applications than just the election.

I'm as tired as everyone else of hearing the Republican BS line that "Clinton didn't do anything" to stop terrorism in the 90's. Remembering some of their positions over the last decade, I thought it was worth a look at what THEY (especially the neocons) would have done if THEY were in charge then and followed their own advice.

See what you think:

1993: First WTC bombing: Swift response: bomb Baghdad. No one arrested, no intelligence gained.

1996: Khobar Towers bombing: Swift response: bomb Baghdad.

Sometime in Late 90's: Ramzi Yousef succeeds in bombing multiple airliners over the Pacific, because 1993 WTC bombing was treated as "war, not police work" (thus there were never any "wanted" alerts for him). Swift response: bomb Baghdad. No one arrested, no intelligence gained.

1998: East African embassies bombed. Swift response: bomb Baghdad. No one arrested, no intelligence gained.

2000: Millenium bombings. Swift response: bomb Baghdad. No one arrested, no intelligence gained.

2001: 9/11 attack. Swift response: bomb Baghdad. More money sent to Taliban for their anti-drug efforts. Osama bin Laden visits Washington, has his photo taken in front of White House and other landmarks holding up a "You're next" sign, with no problems, because nobody knows who he is.