I wouldn't be so quick to assume that if Sept. 11 happened on Clinton's watch, and he claimed linkage between Al Q. and Iraq, and he proceeded to rally public opinion for military action against Iraq, that many Republicans would've opposed him.
Your comparison fails because, while you have convinced yourself that the comparison is accurate, in reality it is a figment of your imagination . . . more like an article of faith as opposed to objective thought.
I think that if Clinton were in office there would have been suport to go after AL Q but not Sadam. It's touch and go as it is. Partisan politics would have meant that a big chunck of the GOP would have cried "Wag the Dog" over the finanial scandals and would not support the war against Sadam. Remember how they were crying wag the dog when Bin Laden blew up our embassies and Clinton launched a few missiles his way ?
Clinton didn't need to wag the dog. His popularity went up durring the Lewisnski scandals and republicans were pissed about that. The last thing that they wanted was a war that would make Clinton even more popular. National secutity didn't enter into it.
Same with Bosnia and Kosovo. If Bush had been in office Republicans would have suported them and democrates would have opposed them. It boils down to partisan politics not American interests.
Some democrats that now opose war with Sadam would be in favor if Clinton were in office but not enouph to swing the decision to giving the pres the green light. That's one reason why it is best that Bush is in office right now. That is if he does what needs to be doen ; what his father failed to do , and occupy Iraq. Just changing the regime could be worse than leaving him in power. We must occupy it and make sure that a pro-American government takes over like we did Germany and Japan.
It seems that many on this site are only interested in whom is in office not whether or not he is doing the right thing.