Not to turn this into a Great Debates thread, but you appear to be horribly misinformed about Clinton’s numerous antiterrorism activities.
Look, you bastards, I don’t want Clarke on me. Even if I swung in that direction, he’s way too old.
It’s “high volume e-mailing” 
Someone appears to be disagreeing with you with regard to Mr. Clinton:
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200403290950.asp
The Economist with a more balanced piece on Mr. Clarke
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.
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 
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 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!
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.
I saw it, and I thought Stewart was characteristically soft on him.
He wasn’t too hard on Karen Hughes, either.
I love this week’s schedule. Tuesday: Richard Clarke. Wednesday: Karen Hughes. Thursday: Johnny Knoxville.
[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.
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 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.
Needless to say, the speech was never delivered.
And you feel safer with these buffoons running the country?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Duh.