Na.. the MSM will spin this like so.... "If the Republican's were not so busy distracting Mr. Clinton with impeachment, he could have paid more attention to Terrorism and even captureed Bin Laden..."
Funny thing is, half the people in this country would believe that.
They can say that, but it just so happens that during Clinton's impeachment ordeal, he waged attacks on 4 soverign nations within an 8-month span (Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and Kosovo). His problem wasn't about being able to do anything...it was about finishing everything.
Instead of his one-week wars on terrorism and Saddam, he could've taken these oppurtunities to do severe damage to these institutions. Unfortunately, it was never his intention to look seriously at these problems, but instead, use them as momentary distractions from his own internal problems. To have taken them seriously, would've meant disrupting his carefully cultivated image of bringing peace and prosperity to the world.
Ironically, while there were some in the pundintry who recognized his wag-the-dog tactics, he had the support of many Republicans for these operations...even when they were done behind their back. He not only had the oppurtunities, he took them...and bailed out.
I've always believed that one of the reasons that Clinton never wanted to deal decisively with the terrorist issue is because of his legacy. Not only did he want to be known for presiding over a "peaceful and prosperous" time...he wanted the legacy of Mid-East peace.
If Clinton would've aggressively dealt with Arab terrorism, he would've never been able to get the Palestinians and their Arab brethren on board with the peace-plan. Sadly, after a decade of appeasement...and giving Arafat almost everything he wanted, not only did the peace-plan fail, we were still attacked on 9/11. All his supposed goodwill did nothing but further enable our enemies.
The DUmmies over at DUh are already busily defending clinton, as we speak.