"Maybe if Bush had been more intersted in Al Qaeda and the Middle East in general an atmosphere wouldn't have been created where bin Laden would have so mush sympathy and support from the Arab world in general..."

Maybe. But Clinton's experience was enlightening. Ben Laden sponsors attacks outside the US. The US responds with measured retaliation as it did to Libya and other terrorist countries and organizations. Ben Laden is moved to further attacks inside and outside the US. Clinton doesn't respond to the Cole attack. Ben Laden is moved to further attacks. Bush tries to wipe out Al Qaeda and capture Ben Laden. Al Qaeda is moved to further attacks (who knows where Ben Laden is).

See the pattern? I don't think it would have made a damn bit of difference what anyone did. Ben Laden and Al Qaeda would have come back for more no matter what. They're not playing by the same rules.