corrente

That is, What Would Clinton Do? A lot. Unlike Bush.

"[CHENEY]: The question that has to be asked is, 'What were they doing in those days when he was in charge of counter-terrorism efforts?'"

Clarke answered Cheney's question Tuesday. During the Clinton administration, he said, al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of "fewer than 50 Americans," and Clinton responded with military action, covert CIA action and by supporting United Nations sanctions.

"They stopped al Qaeda in Bosnia," Clarke said, "They stopped al Qaeda from blowing up embassies around the world." (Clarke transcript)

"Contrast that with Ronald Reagan, where 300 [U.S. soldiers] were killed in [a bombing attack in Beirut,] Lebanon, and there was no retaliation," Clarke said. "Contrast that with the first Bush administration where 260 Americans were killed [in the bombing of] Pan Am [Flight] 103, and there was no retaliation."

"I would argue that for what had actually happened prior to 9/11, the Clinton administration was doing a great deal," Clarke said. "In fact, so much that when the Bush people came into office, they thought I was a little crazy, a little obsessed with this little terrorist bin Laden. Why wasn't I focused on Iraqi-sponsored terrorism?"
(via CNN)

Looks like The Clenis™ was doing a pretty good job. Then Bush comes in, and we get amateurs who take a year to figure out what they're doing, and operate on the premise that whatever Clinton did was wrong. And thousands of dead Americans, civilian and soldier, paid the price.