I'm going to give this one go, since this is pretty heavy on the rhetoric and light on actual argumentation:
which improves what exactly; clark was a stool pigeon and a glory hound
That's not an argument (and also, I think you need to look up what the phrase "stool pigeon" actually
means, since even as an insult it doesn't make a whole lot of sense in this context). Here are some actual facts:
1) Richard Clarke, prior to 2001, was a registered Republican. (I don't know if he's since changed his party affiliation.) He was an intern for
Richard Nixon, and was appointed to his first job in the Defense Department by Ronald Reagan. He then served under Reagan and the first President Bush before being kept on by Bill Clinton. Not exactly the resume of a wild-eyed lefty.
2) It's a documented fact that Clarke
was obsessed with Al-Qaeda as a potential threat under both Presidents Clinton and Bush. Now you
might have argued that Clarke was
so vociferous in his warnings about Al Qaeda that he would have been tuned out by President Gore as well -- I don't think that's true, mind you, but it's at least an
argument that one might have made.
what actionable intel even made it to an agency head let alone someone with decision making authority in the executive branch;
Well, IOTL, none because Clarke's memo -- you know, the one entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" -- was dismissed by Bush's national security team. I think we all know how well that turned out. My argument is that Clarke wouldn't have been marginalized by a President Gore, so, you know, more intel might have actually
made it to the executive branch. I might suggest reading the
9/11 Commission Report as a starting point.
9/11 getting stopped just by the virtue of gore being president is the biggest, most irritating cliche of this site and revisionist liberals
Not my argument.
the fbi and cia had horrible interagency and cross agency communication throughout the clinton era, and considering much of the national security aparatus would carry over if gore won, why the hell would it possibly improve in any measurable way within 8 months
Well, one measurable way would be that
Clarke wouldn't have been marginalized....
the fbi and cia didn't have enough dots to connect them even if magic Gore told them to starting connecting dots for all terrorist activities with tripple their otl resources and manpower on jan 20 2001
That's a nifty argument. Do you have any facts to support it? (Also, FWIW, it's spelled 'triple.')
9/11 was a very thoroughly planned, highly compartmentalized operation, constructed in rigid secrecy,
It's also an incredibly
unlikely operation to pull off. Note that IOTL, one-fourth of 9/11 was essentially stopped by
one dude in the men's room, so, you know, it's not particularly far-fetched to think that the entire U.S. Government might have stopped the other three-fourths.
just because the fat hypocrite is in the white house doesn't magically change shit.
Oooh, fat! That's a
good one.
Hint: you'd better get all those fat jokes out now before next Wednesday, when Chris Christie's 2016 campaign starts in earnest.