Good for him. When it comes to numbers and spending I've no problem acknowledging the facts of that article. That said, there were still eight years where terrorists were allowed to operate freely and that does (somewhat) negate whatever money was poured in.

PT: I agree, no excuse for Clinton's shameful inattention to terrorism.

The response to the Palestinian barrack bombing was understated, but you can weigh that against his morning call for Col. Gaddaffi and how he faced off the `evil empire` and the west won. There doesn't seem to be any kinds of profound military victories or ways America's interests were protected during other times of crisis through the Clinton years. How can you explain his response to the first WTC attack if he was the misunderstood warrior?

PT: As to Libya, several months ago, Newsweek ran an article stating that Gaddaffi's withrawl from terrorism had nothing to do with Reagan's bombing. As to Reagan winning the Cold War, geez, give it a break. I never hear conservatives mention the impact of The Marshall Plan, the sustained effort of every American administration since Truman, Gorby, the fact that communism was doomed to fail, and a whole host of others. Much easier to say Ronnie did it than bother reading our history. Americans can only process so much information.

Of course there's also the theory (from Chris Hitchens) that Clinton was an FBI informant when he was studying in the UK. How else could a draft-dodger get the big job?!    

PT: I know how another draft-dodger got the big job (one year AWOL counts as draft dodging in my book), the Supreme Court decided it!