Yes, but I think it's lame when people (not saying you) try and make the argument that we brought terrorist attacks on ourselves because we trained these people and attempt to lay blame on this leader or that leader for doing so. You mean like blaming Reagan for the CIA's funding of the mujahideen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan? I think that is a poor argument, but there is something to the notion that we shouldn't have done that. I don't necessarily believe that what we did there, in supporting those groups politically and monetarily, has directly lead to the terrorism we experience now. What we gave them they really weren't using against us until we went into Iraq. However, there is something to the notion that to some extent, our foreign policy is flawed because we are willing to sacrifice a bunch of "little picture" scenarios for "larger picture" scenarios. It's this whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Well, no, not if the enemy of your enemy is also your enemy. It's like when one reads stories about how elite units of our military are training insurgent groups in Iran. Sure, it'd be nice to not to have to deal with the Iranian elite, but do you really know what you're attempting to replace them with?