What about Reagan? He failed to retaliate after 241 U.S. marines in Lebanon were slaughtered on his watch. Do you blame him for their deaths? Do you blame him for not only retaliating but supporting Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan afterwards?
None of you are showing any consistency in the way you evaluate our current dilemna. You're no different than the Dems who blame everything on a VRWC.
Reagan was fighting against the "evil empire." Reagan considered ANYONE fighting the Russians should be supported. I think throughout history, you will find that many examples of instances where a country was supported only to change once they were in power. Bhutto, who's been all over CNN and Fox, has said she had supported the Taliban but they changed once in power. This is not JUST a US position, nor is it unusual.
Did you forget all the crap about Arms for Hostages that also went on doing Reagan's administration? Sometimes the less of two evils is chosen!
I consider Bush Jr. to be a superior president to his father. And I can't speak to the way his father ran the CIA, I was probably too busy raising kids at that time. But one thing I'm sure of, those terrorist cells in the US were already to go on inauguration 2001, and were just laying low for orders to attack. In other words, the training and damage had already been done!
Recommend you watch the MSNBC show on Suicide Islamics - they plant these "sleepers" who remain in country for months/years before given their orders! They just confirmed exactly what I said above - these 19 were ready to attack before Bush was even sworn-in!