KyrosL,
In my view, the decisions of the Clinton administration concerning terrorist organizations and terrorist states were not based on actions taken by prior administrations. The State Dept. under the Clinton administration had a well-documented tendency to "hope for the best" and respond with tepid measures or ignore the worst actions of terrorist factions. The vehement hatred for America harbored by Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein was obvious to all by the time the Clinton administration was dealing with the problems. President Clinton admitted that he knew bin Laden sought to kill Americans at the time he declined the extradition offer by the Sudanese. I believe under the exact circumstances that existed in the 1990's, the current Bush administration would have found some justification to take custody of bin Laden, up to and including a parking violation for hitching his camel in front of a fire hydrant on a Sudanese road.
Assistance in the form of training and conventional arms provided to desperate, anti-Soviet defenders of Afghanistan in the 1980's was the right thing to do. I still believe that today. I'll grant you that providing equipment with dual-use purposes to any country that could be used in the manufacture of WMD was the wrong thing to do. WMD are far too dangerous and difficult to contain if unleashed. That's why the ludicrous nuclear non-proliferation agreement with the North Koreans brokered in 1994 by Jimmy Carter and the Clinton administration was such a tragic farce. We knew the extremely dangerous, anti-American nature of NK at the time. Nevertheless, the negotiated agreement (appeasement) had no teeth in it to guarantee compliance. We know that NK got what they wanted (oil) and still abrogated the agreement almost immediately. It was another example of a disastrous decision taken in hindsight. In the Iran/Iraq conflict, at least give credit to the U.S. administration for recognizing the true nature of the greatest threat posed by Iran in the world, which was (and still is) the spread of radical Islam.
Let's be honest about this. The correct geopolitical solution is always obvious when viewed in hindsight. History is filled with examples of alliances formed to oppose a perceived greater threat that later dissolve into deadly conflicts. We fought side-by-side with the Soviet Union in the heroic struggle to defeat NAZI Germany in World War II. However, it wasn't hypocritical of the U.S. to later vigorously oppose the Soviet Union as it became clear that Soviet communists under Stalin were murdering millions of their own citizens. It's just possible that fewer citizens of the Soviet Union might have ultimately died in the 20th century if Hitler had conquered the Soviet Union. However, every rational human being believed then that Hitler represented the greater threat at the time and fought valiantly to defeat the NAZI regime.
I firmly believe that the events of 9/11/2001 forever changed the way the USA interacts with Islamic states and Moslem factions. I don't believe the U.S. will ever again provide covert aid to any Islamic nation threatened by an invading third-party aggressor or a tyrannical leader. If the freedom and security of the U.S. are directly threatened by the outcome of the conflict, either the uniformed troops of the U.S. will be deployed to fight together with the oppressed Islamic nation or the U.S. will act in a coalition of nations or unilaterally if necessary. Technology transfer for the purpose of manufacture of WMD will not even be discussed. However, if such weapons are used against the U.S. we will deliver an overwhelmingly response with awesome devastation the result (God forbid).
GT
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
