I think what gets most people, or at least me, is that his instinctive knee-jerk reaction was to prop up the perps by readily echoeing the sentiment that they are brave warriors while at the same time not missing a chance to belittle us in our time of great national sorrow. His point did have some validity, though poorly stated, and it was a point that many here have made in regards to the high-altitude air campaign we ran against the Serbs. But still, that was not the time to bring it up, to praise those butchers and then to contrast that praise by calling us wimpy. Instead, why not have pointed out that the orders given by bin Laden (or whoever) were cowardly by attacking innocent people from afar and THEN maybe have compared that to the spineless way that Clinton ran his military affairs?
By the way, for what it's worth i don't agree that the terrorists were brave warriors. Crazed lunatics is more like it. The type of men that if they had been born here would likely have grown up to follow in the footsteps of Ted Bundy or Charles Manson. But instead it is those types, the killers without consciouses that would be sitting on death row here, it is they that in countries like Afghanistan become leaders or top officers while the more decent folks among them sit rotting away in prisons (that is, if they're lucky).
That's a really good point you made - crazed lunatics vs. brave warriors. I haven't seen anyone distinguish the two yet. Good job.