# Richard Clarke on the Daily Show (3/30) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 31, 2004, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-clarke-on-the-daily-show-3-30/237508 "2004-03-31T12:33:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-clarke-on-the-daily-show-3-30/237508/21 "2004-04-01T00:52:48Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > Actually there is an awful lot to pin on the Clinton administration. Think about it logically for a moment, Clinton had 8 years to heed the warnings whereas Bush had 7 months. There was numerous direct attacks on American interests that Clinton simply didn’t respond to. Not to turn this into a Great Debates thread, but you appear to be horribly misinformed about Clinton’s numerous antiterrorism activities. [Click here.](http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/10/30/135644/95) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-clarke-on-the-daily-show-3-30/237508/22 "2004-04-01T00:53:56Z")
Look, you bastards, I don’t _want_ Clarke on me. Even if I swung in that direction, he’s _way_ too old. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-clarke-on-the-daily-show-3-30/237508/23 "2004-04-01T00:58:51Z")
> [@ShibbOleth](#): > > FWIW, I thought the Rob Cordry (sp?) piece on Spam legislation was hysterical in it’s irony. It’s “high volume e-mailing” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-clarke-on-the-daily-show-3-30/237508/24 "2004-04-01T02:27:53Z")
Someone appears to be disagreeing with you with regard to Mr. Clinton: [http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200403290950.asp](http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200403290950.asp) The Economist with a more balanced piece on Mr. Clarke > **[The blame game](https://www.economist.com/united-states/2004/03/25/the-blame-game)** > > Was Iraq a distraction from the war against America's real enemies? And could those enemies have been countered earlier? I don’t believe that the Clinton administration could have prevented September 11 but I do believe that they are as least as culpable as you would have us believe the Bush administration is. Clinton’s response to the '93 World Trade Center bombing was astonishingly lax. An admnistration with 7 months experience should not have to shoulder this sort of responsibility. John Stewart should have the intellectual honesty to ask this sort of question to a disgruntled civil servant with a clear axe to grind. ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-clarke-on-the-daily-show-3-30/237508/25 "2004-04-01T02:30:36Z")
Rjung: No disrespect intended but I have never heard of the group/website that you linked to. I did, however, spend some time on the site and I think it would be fair to say that it has a significant liberal bent to it. That said, National Review is a Republican organ though the Economist is rather “middle of the road”…so long as you allow the market to flourish 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-clarke-on-the-daily-show-3-30/237508/26 "2004-04-01T02:54:04Z")
> [@](#): > > FWIW, I thought the Rob Cordry (sp?) piece on Spam legislation was hysterical in it’s irony. I thought flashing the guy’s email address at the bottom of the screen as he was telling Rob not to do so was hilarious! I sent him an email within 2 minutes of seeing the address: **Subject:** Y0u s1r ArRrE an aash0LE! **Body:** Gett @ re-al JoBB, ya sL0b! Gett offf y0ur a$$ t0Da-y and ffind a worth wh1le way 2 maake a living! Ju st PIKC up y0ur loXcal WAnT-Ad-s and throwe a darT at Them! Anyhting wou1D b bbetter tha n what your’re Currentleee do1ng!!! It was immediately sent back with the message: _Remote host said: 554 delivery error: Sorry, your message to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@ [yahoo.com](http://yahoo.com) cannot be delivered. This account is over quota._ So I guess I wasn’t the only person sending this guy a message last night. 🙂 Happy P.S. I just checked the junk email account that I sent the email from: I have 393 new junk emails today! Score, baby! ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-clarke-on-the-daily-show-3-30/237508/27 "2004-04-01T08:29:16Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > Rjung: No disrespect intended but I have never heard of the group/website that you linked to. I merely linked to that page to avoid linking to the three dozen mainstream news sites it’s linking to – e.g., if you follow the references, you’ll find nonpartisan cites supporting the various claims. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Clinton was SuperPresident who could do no wrong, and was stopped from flying to Afghanistan and capturing Osama only because Newt Gingrich had a stash of Kryptonite nearby. But I think a fair and impartial assessment of the facts will show that “There was numerous direct attacks on American interests that Clinton simply didn’t respond to” is grossly inaccurate. Antiterrorism in the '90s was a non-issue for most Americans (“Osama who? Al whatsis?”), and Clinton _was_ trying to keep things from getting worse, even while the media was preoccupied with various Republican-fabricated scandals. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-clarke-on-the-daily-show-3-30/237508/28 "2004-04-01T12:37:58Z")
I saw it, and I thought Stewart was characteristically soft on him. ---
**Author:** ![look\_ninjas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b2d939/32.png) [@look\_ninjas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/look_ninjas)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-clarke-on-the-daily-show-3-30/237508/29 "2004-04-01T14:21:14Z")
He wasn’t too hard on Karen Hughes, either. I love this week’s schedule. Tuesday: Richard Clarke. Wednesday: Karen Hughes. Thursday: Johnny Knoxville. ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-clarke-on-the-daily-show-3-30/237508/30 "2004-04-01T16:06:58Z")
[QUOTE=look!ninjas] He wasn’t too hard on Karen Hughes, either. [QUOTE] I saw the show last night, and he was unbelievably soft on her. Especially towards the end of the interview when she was talking about Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Airblairxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Airblairxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airblairxxx)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-clarke-on-the-daily-show-3-30/237508/31 "2004-04-01T18:44:10Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > I don’t believe that the Clinton administration could have prevented September 11 but I do believe that they are as least as culpable as you would have us believe the Bush administration is. Clinton’s response to the '93 World Trade Center bombing was astonishingly lax. An admnistration with 7 months experience should not have to shoulder this sort of responsibility The '93 WTC bombing took place a month after Clinton’s inauguration. It culminated with the guilty parties going to jail. Should he have bombed Afghanistan then? The whole crux of Bush’s approach has been to go after the state sponsors of terrorism. (Well, at least Iraq. Iran and North Korea might be a little tougher nut to crack, we’ll hold off on those.) (OK, so Iraq was really a neutered thugacracy that was no threat to its neighbors . . .) (Hey, it’s working, over two years since 9/11 and no terrorist attacks! Except for Bali, Turkey, Madrid . . .) The whole point of this controversy is not that Clinton should have prevented 9/11–he wasn’t the president then, remember? But rather that our national security was entrusted to a man who was obsessed with Iraq, who might–I say MIGHT–have been able to prevent 9/11 but instead chose to focus on other “threats” that so far have proven to be vastly overstated. Oh, and the WashPost has on its [front page](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40697-2004Mar31?language=printer) a story that says Condi Rice was scheduled to give a speech on September 11, 2001, in which she was to address the " threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" . . . and promote missile defense as the cornerstone of national security. > [@](#): > > “We need to worry about the suitcase bomb, the car bomb and the vial of sarin released in the subway,” according to excerpts of the speech provided to The Washington Post. “[But] why put deadbolt locks on your doors and stock up on cans of mace and then decide to leave your windows open?” Needless to say, the speech was never delivered. And you feel safer with these buffoons running the country? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-clarke-on-the-daily-show-3-30/237508/32 "2004-04-01T19:20:57Z")
> [@Rex Fenestrarum](#): > > You know… I agree. I hadn’t really formed an opinion one way or the other. In fact (being what I call a “reluctant Republican” - or “a Libertarian that got sick of being ignored”) I was prepared to think GWB was in trouble. But then I heard some stuff on national and local radio that prodded me into looking into the issue deeper and it seems to me that Stewart is wilfully ignoring some questions about Clarke’s credibility. > > \*(NOTE: I haven’t made up my mind about his credibility myself, but it **seems** that he’s not the saint the media wants him to be. Stewart is acting like those questions don’t exist and that bothers me. Because you know if it were a Democrat in the White House, Stewart would be all up Clarke’s ass.) \* I note yhou’re taking a stance as if you’re an objective, “reluctant” Repub, but I also note that you’re going full-bore with the Rove line on Clarke: framing the debate entirely on Clarke’s credibility, as opposed to examining the credibility of Clarke’s claims re: Bush and 9/11. Which destroys YOUR credibility, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-clarke-on-the-daily-show-3-30/237508/33 "2004-04-01T19:25:53Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > I merely linked to that page to avoid linking to the three dozen mainstream news sites it’s linking to – e.g., if you follow the references, you’ll find nonpartisan cites supporting the various claims. > > Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Clinton was SuperPresident who could do no wrong, and was stopped from flying to Afghanistan and capturing Osama only because Newt Gingrich had a stash of Kryptonite nearby. But I think a fair and impartial assessment of the facts will show that “There was numerous direct attacks on American interests that Clinton simply didn’t respond to” is grossly inaccurate. Antiterrorism in the '90s was a non-issue for most Americans (“Osama who? Al whatsis?”), and Clinton _was_ trying to keep things from getting worse, even while the media was preoccupied with various Republican-fabricated scandals. Yes, we should never forget just how intensely interested most Republicans were in oral sex in those days, to the exclusion of all other topics, including terrorism. Blowjobs were all Republicans cared about in those halcyon days of yore, and I doubt that Osama could have gotten their attention by walking into Congress with a nuke balanced on his turbanned head, unless he ALSO claimed he had evidence that Clinton knew he was getting a blowjob when Monica Lewinsky put his cock in her mouth. ---
**Author:** ![Lagged2Death](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ac8455/32.png) [@Lagged2Death](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lagged2Death)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-clarke-on-the-daily-show-3-30/237508/34 "2004-04-01T19:51:17Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > I must have missed something Laggedtodeath, I’ve never thought being obtuse could be humorous…come to think of it, I still don’t. My point, such as it was, was that Clinton - like many, many other former American presidents, is **not** running for election in 2004. It no longer accomplishes anything useful to attack him or to defend him. Clarke is making waves by talking about Bush, who **is** running for re-election. In a discussion of Bush’s record as president, it seems to me that bringing up Clinton’s presidency is a change of subject, a non sequitur. Sadly, there are a lot of voters who will be voting for Bush in 2004 just because they still don’t like Clinton. Which makes zero sense, but I bet it’s true. > [@Lochdale](#): > > An admnistration with 7 months experience should not have to shoulder this sort of [terrorist attack] responsibility. So what is the cut-off, then, 10 months, 18 months? Everything bad that happens before that is automatically the preceding guy’s fault? Or are you saying the terrorists should wait until at least a year after an administration change before attacking us? Maybe Bush should have called Clinton back out of retirement to handle the crisis? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-clarke-on-the-daily-show-3-30/237508/35 "2004-04-01T22:40:31Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > It was a good interview. One of the things that bothered me, however, was the fact that Stewart didn’t focus on what the Clinton administration could have done. After all, Bush was in power for 7 months before 9/11 whereas Clinton had 8 years from the '93 attack. Therein lies my major problem with Clarke. He exonerates Clinton (after attacking him in 2002) and seems to focus on the new administration. Furhter, his motives are more then questionably as are his facts. Clarke has covered this time and time again. They didn’t even know there WAS an al Qaeda in '93. The first time there was a terrorist incident that they knew was perpetrated by al Qaeda was '98, and Clinton DID respond to that, and was promptly castigated by the Republicans. Clarke appears to be satisfied with the support he received when working for the Clinton administration. Clarke has answered your question; it’s just not the answer that YOU wanted. > [@](#): > > I wonder why Clarke won’t appear on Miller… Duh. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-clarke-on-the-daily-show-3-30/237508.md?page=1)