Tim Blair

While AQ was not an urgent threat, I think this could be, via Rantburg:

Thieves have stolen 660kg (1400lb) of dynamite from an unstaffed storage depot in Norway, say police. Around 5,000 detonators were also stolen, raising fears of a terrorist attack, officials told state radio.
The missing dynamite was more than six times the amount used for the bomb attacks on trains in Madrid nearly a month ago. Last May, a taped message attributed to al-Qaeda's second-in-command urged Muslim militants to hit Norway. In the message, a man identified as al-Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri advocated attacks on the embassies and interests of the United States, Britain, Australia and Norway, to drive them from Muslim countries.
The NRK state radio network reported that the storage depot, on the outskirts of the remote town of Gol, had a fence and heavy doors - but no alarm system....

Although Clinton was WAY to soft on terrorism, I don't believe he had bad intentions, just horrible judgement.

As for Bush, I'm sure he could have done more in his first months in retrospect. I'm sure Iraq was at least as high a priority as al Qaeda before 9/11 and I feel that's justified even though it turned out to be a bad call.

Clarke however I feel is a lying, immoral, greedy drama queen. His blatant grudge against Bush is obvious and he's using his position to slam him while obscuring the truth about what happened. Not to mention his playing on an emotional topic to sell some books. The man disgusts me. He should die of gonorrhea.

I'll second Dash on that. Sure, Bush could have done more, Clinton could have done more, but that's more a miscalculation in retrospect than derilection of duty.

Come on, read between the lines people.

Oh, alright then don't.

:)

If Clarke really wanted to stick the boot in to the current administration, he could have at least cleaned up his paper trail! Don't they teach you kids about how to orchestrate conspiracies anymore...sheesh...

Clinton and Bush might have done more to prevent 9/11, perhaps. But hindsight is always a depressing 20/20. "What might of been" thinking goes nowhere unless you learn from it.

And that is where Clinton and Bush differ.

The Clinton administration witnessed multiple terrorist attacks in an 8 year period, including one in the United States. His response? Shoot some cruise missiles at random into Africa and Afghanistan, engage in diplomacy, and ignore the threats. Them's the facts.

The Bush administration had a shorter window, and a more massive terrorist attack -- 9/11. I don't know that Bush might have toddled along like Clinton did, or might have been far more agressive than Clinton. But that doesn't matter, either.

Because Bush did not sit on his duff and pass memos around after the attack. He recognized the attack for what it was -- a long over due wake up call. He learned from it.

And that is what gives me hope -- we have a leader who learns from mistakes, his and others. Not a perfect human being, but someone willing to seize the moment, and move forward.

I really don't care about Bush's military record, his accent, or his grade point in college. Results are what count, not polish and charm.