Here's a couple. I need more links, too, so am curious as to what others find. I've got an ongoing D's vs. R's on an alumni site and they really believe Clinton did absolutely nothing.

August 20, 1998 Clinton orders cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan aimed at killing terrorist Osama bin Laden in retaliation for embassy bombings in Africa. This is the first of several failed efforts to eliminate the terrorist during Clinton’s final years in office.

From: A Clinton Chronology http://www.booknoise.net/thesurvivor/timeline.html

http://makethemaccountable.com/whatwhen/Q00_WhatBushKnew.htm (Not about Clinton, but gives a little more recent history)

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorintelligence/search4osama.html (This is a long piece, so I cut and pasted items germane to the subject)

Clarke told me that in the mid-nineties “the C.I.A. was authorized to mount operations to go into Afghanistan and apprehend bin Laden.” President Clinton, Clarke said, “was really gung-ho” about the scenario. “He had no hesitations,” he said. “But the C.I.A. had hesitations. They didn’t want their own people killed. And they didn’t want their shortcomings exposed. They really didn’t have the paramilitary capability to do it; they could not stage a snatch operation.” Instead of trying to mount the operation themselves, Clarke said, “the C.I.A. basically paid a bunch of local Afghans, who went in and did nothing.”

In 1998, Al Qaeda struck the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing more than two hundred people. In retaliation, Clinton signed a secret Presidential finding authorizing the C.I.A. to kill bin Laden. It was the first directive of this kind that Clarke had seen during his thirty years in government. Soon afterward, he told me, C.I.A. officials went to the White House and said they had “specific, predictive, actionable” intelligence that bin Laden would soon be attending a particular meeting, in a particular place. “It was a rare occurrence,” Clarke said. Clinton authorized a lethal attack. The target date, however—August 20, 1998—nearly coincided with Clinton’s deposition about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Clarke said that he and other top national-security officials at the White House went to see Clinton to warn him that he would likely be accused of “wagging the dog” in order to distract the public from his political embarrassment. Clinton was enraged. “Don’t you fucking tell me about my political problems, or my personal problems,” Clinton said, according to Clarke. “You tell me about national security. Is it the right thing to do?” Clarke thought it was. “Then fucking do it,” Clinton told him.

President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get." Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

Bill Press: Don't blame it on Bill Clinton

Operating on limited intelligence -- at that time, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Tazikistan refused to share information on the terrorists whereabouts inside Afghanistan -- U. S. strikes missed bin Laden by only a couple of hours.

Even so, Clinton was accused of only firing missiles in order to divert media attention from the Lewinsky hearings. A longer campaign would have stirred up even more criticism.

So Clinton tried another tack. He sponsored legislation to freeze the financial assets of international organizations suspected of funneling money to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network -- identical to orders given by President Bush this month -- but it was killed, on behalf of big banks, by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas.

Dead on the Tracks

In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation — from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.

Congress passes anti-terrorism bill

Congress on Thursday passed a compromise bill boosting the ability of law enforcement authorities to fight domestic terrorism, just one day before the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.

A History of Clinton, Bush, and Terrorism

July 1996: Congressional Republicans object to Clinton's proposed expansion of the intelligence agencies wiretap authority. Newt Gingrich tells Fox News Sunday: "When you have an agency that turns 900 personnel files over to people like Craig Livingstone... it's very hard to justify giving the agency more power."

Al Franken on Rich Lowry's Legacy - Paying the Price for the Clinton Years

[On August 12, 2001 issue of Time] In that article, we learn that outgoing Clinton officials felt that "the Bush team thought the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism."

"Round and round, round we go." - Tupac

Clinton Sending Reinforcements After Heavy Losses in Somalia

By R. W. APPLE JR.

(...)

On Capitol Hill, such senior figures as Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, expressed support for the President's policy. But there was also sharp criticism, with Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, calling for an immediate end to "these fatal cops-and-robbers operations," and Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican who sits on the Armed Services Committee, stating bluntly, "Clinton's got to bring them home."

(...)

Freepers re-writing history on Clinton/Monica/bin Laden criticism

... with all the talk about Clinton and his efforts or lack thereof with catching bin Laden, it’s funny that the Freepers should weigh in on his “wag the dog” claims.

Conservatives did use the wag the dog reference numerous times, not in reference to bin Laden, but in reference to Clinton’s massive bombardment of Serbia, which had absolutely nothing to do with bin Laden.

Claiming that ‘right wing conservatives’ were complaining that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden is an outright lie. But to try and prove it by using the wag the dog reference was a stupid move on his part and illuminated his lack of facts to back it up. And in my view, invalidated the rest of the rant, er interview.

Hell of a bombshell of an accusation. Is it true? Did Clinton just make it up that the redcoats were accusing him of wagging the dog with going after bin Laden in order to retroactively make himself look better?

It’s certainly an accusation supported by the various comments, take this fella for one:

Yes you are correct. “Wag the dog” was not about OBL, it was about bombing Serbia to take the news stories away from Monica. I was as interested in politics then as I am now, I don’t recall even knowing anything about OBL at that time.

So that’s the main thesis, then. The main criticism had nothing to do with Osama and Afghanistan, it was about bombing Serbia. In fact, Clinton never actually talked about bin Laden, right? Right?

No. Nope, sorry, that is actually how it happened. In fact, you can take a look at Free Republic’s own site back in 1998 when the bombing in Afghanistan started up. And the title just sums it up perfectly: Wag The Dog ! Wag the Dog! We are bombing Afganhistan!

Onto the comments:

Please pray for our pilots and sailors and that this does not escacalate. This is so sad. Afgahnistan ought to be our ally.

Important point: Islamic extremists are Islamic first, very tight knit. I grudgingly respect their unity. This could spill over to many other countries. Our only hope is that the Islamics believe our administration was righteous in what it did. This is a litmus test of Clinton’s ability ot handle a diplomatic mess. PLEASE PRAY.

If the Islamics are too outraged, we need to get the bum out. If he doesn’t resign, he needs to be impeached. This is absurd. We have NEVER had a military leader asked if “this was wag-the-dog”. This can’t be good for foreign affairs or for our troops.

Possibly the most ironic thing ever uttered:

The real question is what we’re NOT hearing is if the strikes were conducted with the approval of Afghanistan & Sudan; and IF those other soverign states KNEW of our intention to launch attacks inside their territory. If not, slick has now marked America as a terrorist nation and committed an international act of war. This absolutely AIN’T no coincidence, folks. BC is dangerous and must go NOW!

... Oh, and if you’re wondering why the page from 1998 isn’t on Free Republic’s own site, there’s a very simple explanation for that: in order to protect themselves from simple investigation on their “we never said that claims”, they erased the page...

link to Hanlon's Razor

Los Angeles | August 21, 1998

CNN - A president embroiled in a sex scandal in the Oval Office tries to save his presidency by distracting the nation with a made-for-TV war far from American soil in an obscure country.

"Look at the movie 'Wag the Dog.' I think this has all the elements of that movie," Rep. Jim Gibbons said. "Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems."

Massachusetts acting Gov. Paul Cellucci, a Republican and a movie buff, said: "It popped into my mind, but I do hope that that's not the situation and I trust that it isn't."

One of the first questions asked of Defense Secretary William Cohen at a nationally televised Pentagon was how he would respond to people who think the military action "bears a striking resemblance to 'Wag the Dog."'

CNN Poll: Most Americans Support Sudan, Afghanistan Strikes
Keating Holland | Washington | August 21, 1998

CNN - Two-thirds of all Americans approve of the U.S. military attacks on alleged terrorist-related facilities, and 61 percent have confidence in President Bill Clinton as a military leader, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll.

But nearly half -- 47 percent -- think that Thursday's military strikes will increase terrorist actions against Americans, while 38 percent say the U.S. attacks are more likely to decrease terrorism.

Only a third of all Americans, however, say they are personally worried that they or someone in their family will fall victim to a terrorism.

More than a third of people surveyed -- 36 percent -- think Clinton ordered the attacks partly to divert attention from the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. A majority do not believe that scenario, the subject of last year's popular political movie "Wag The Dog."

Washington | December 16, 1998

CNN - White House officials insist a looming impeachment vote in the House had no bearing on President Clinton's decision to bomb Iraq -- but planes were still in the air as a chorus of critics began voicing skepticism about the timing.

Prominent among the skeptics: Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) and House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas).

"I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."

"The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."

Armey renewed his call for the president to resign.

"Whatever happens, it will take years to repair the damage President Clinton has done to his office and his country," Armey said.

October 15, 1998

The decision to send Tomahawk cruise missiles against the El Shifa factory in Sudan turns out to have been based on evidence so flimsy that even James Bond would have refrained from acting on it. This was first revealed in a front-page story in the New York Times on Sept. 21, and has now been explored in chilling detail in this week's New Yorker by Seymour Hersh.

Remember when the President rushed back from Martha's Vineyard to speak to the nation from the Oval Office? "Our target was terror," he said. Well, it turns that in Sudan our target was a pharmaceutical factory. "The factory," the President asserted, "was involved in the production of materials for chemical weapons. The United States does not take this action lightly."

factoryIn fact, it appears that the United States took this action not just lightly but also recklessly and under extraordinary circumstances -- to wit, excluding from the decision-making process four of the five members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as FBI director Louis Freeh, who at the time had 400 men in the field investigating the embassy bombings. The attack on Sudan was supposed to be in retaliation for the very bombings the FBI was investigating.

The President's national-security advisor, Sandy Berger, told the nation that he knew "with great certainty" that the Khartoum factory was producing a nerve-gas precursor. Berger's great certainty was based on a handful of dirt from the factory's yard. So the President immediately assumed Dr. No was in the building -- and blew it to smithereens. The Administration has now admitted that it wasn't unaware the factory was manufacturing medicine.

But the television media that make or break a scandal these days have yet to take notice. "This story had all the wrong odors from the beginning," Bill Moyers told me. "It reminded me of decisions to retaliate taken in the Johnson White House during Vietnam on slim evidence of uncorroborated personal reports."

"I can tell you," Seymour Hersh said Tuesday on Charlie Rose -- one of the tiny handful of shows that dealt with the recent disclosures-"that the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had an explanation for why they were cut out. They were cut out because they would have said 'no'."

Despite Hersh's revelations based on more than a hundred interviews with intelligence and military sources, scandal-weary members on the Hill entrusted with oversight responsibilities have also remained silent.

Sudan ruinsLet's assume that most Democrats are not going to criticize their already-vulnerable president about anything. But where are the Republicans? Rep. Floyd Spence (R-S.C.), chairman of the House National Security Committee, had a few questions for the Administration, but no time to ask them with the House going to recess and the election looming. "We've been very concerned," he told me, "about the Administration's declaration of war on terrorism, with no follow-up after the botched-up cruise-missile attacks and no coherent policy for dealing with the terrorist threats."

In a letter to Spence on Wednesday, Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), a member of the National Security Committee, wrote, "it is imperative that the National Security Committee undertake a comprehensive investigation on the August missile attack . . . as its first order of business in the 106th Congress." Jones, who had supported the attacks, expresses in the letter his newfound skepticism: "After learning more about the attack, I am disturbed that the Clinton Administration undertook seemingly hasty and ill-planned military action without full consultation of the nation's foremost uniformed leaders."

Senators on the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees who had all supported the strikes are also beginning to stir. Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.),too, plans to call for hearings after the election. "The allegations are disturbing," he told me, "and the President's exclusion of the FBI raises serious doubts about his decision."

'I was here on this island up till 2:30 in the morning," the President said in a speech in Martha's Vineyard a few days after the attack on Sudan," trying to make absolutely sure that at that chemical plant there was no night shift. I believed I had to take the action I did, but I didn't want some person who was a nobody to me -- but who may have a family to feed and a life to live, and probably had no earthly idea what else was going on there -- to die needlessly."

Clinton dress

"Somewhere in Libya right now, a janitor is working the night shift at the Libyan intelligence headquarters," a concerned Michael Douglas tells Annette Bening in The American President. "And he's going about doing his job because he has no idea that in about an hour he's going to die in a massive explosion."

Douglas was seducing a pretty lobbyist. The President is lulling a nation to sleep, while destroying lives, property, and American credibility abroad.