You mean Bin Laden, I presume.<quoted text>Clinton did nothing regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, Saddam and Bib Haden.
The issue with regard to Iraq was disarmament, and there is a fluctuating history there. In 1998, concern was expressed by UN weapon inspectors over whether Iraq was in compliance.
In response, Clinton authorized a cruise missile strike and imposed severe economic sanctions. These actions appear to have had effect because by 1999, the inspectors shifted from their earlier view to one that Iraq was largely disarmed.
Former inspector, Scott Ritter, who resigned in 1998 in protest over the lack of UN vigor with regard to Iraq had this to say in June, 1999:
"When you ask the question,'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability."
So Clinton did do something and it worked.
Afghanistan was not a major issue during the Clinton years. Bush paid no attention to it at all until after 9-11.
As for Bin Laden, you will have to spell your case in more detail. Unlike you Republicans, I don't use a crystal ball to decipher my opponent's lack of clarity.