You have to give credit to the White House. No matter how bad the news is - and don't let anyone tell you that having a pro like Clarke drive a stake through a key campaign issue isn't bad, bad news - they manage to minimize the damage as much as possible.
In this case, they have done it by repeating that Bush wanted to stop "swatting flies" and deal with Al Qaeda as a broader strategic threat. Further, they have tried to claim that the Clinton administration treated the fight as a law enforcement issue.
While it is true that these charges are not convincing, they have been successful in framing the debate in the manner most favorable to Bush.
Pretty much everyone acknowledges two realities. First, a full blown war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, necessary to take out bin Laden, was pretty much not a politically acceptable choice for either Clinton or Bush pre-9/11. Second, even if bin Laden had been killed it probably wouldn't have stopped 9/11.
Therefore, the reasoning goes, Bush's pre-9/11 admitted "lack of urgency" didn't really matter. There was nothing that could have been done. No harm, no foul.
The problem with this logic is that it completely ignores the, yes, law enforcement measures that could have been taken. If Bush's White House had truly understood the magnitude of the threat, there were many things that could have been accomplished.
If the CIA had communicated to the FBI the names of suspected terrorists 9/11 might have been prevented. If the FBI had forwarded those names to airlines 9/11 might have been prevented. If the FBI in D.C. had encouraged regional offices to report as much potential terror activity as possible 9/11 might have been prevented. If the FBI had rewarded agents who worked on uncovering threats 9/11 might have been prevented. If the information on terrorists training at flight schools had been reported 9/11 might have been prevented. If John Ashcroft had made terrorism a priority 9/11 might have beenprevented.
I could go on and on, but it is clear that there are many things that could have been done that quite possibly might have stopped 9/11. We'll never know for sure, but the key is to put yourself in a position to succeed. By not conducting Principals meetings, Bush put America in a position to fail rather than succeed.
It is also clear that by denigrating the law enforcement aspects of fighting terrorism (by implying that they are somehow less manly), the White House has successfully gotten the focus off its miserable law enforcement record in this regard.
Does Clinton bear responsibility for a failure of sufficient investigation into potential terror attacks? Of course, to some extent. Some of the terrorists were apparently living and training here during his presidency. But at least he put a fire under the asses of his Principals. Louis Freeh was an incompetent asswipe who was insulated from being fired by a Republican Congress. Clinton really didn't have the power to institute many of the needed reforms. Reforms that, in many cases, still haven't been implemented.