Teri O’Brien - America’s Conservative Warrior Princess » Note to Clintons: it’s not 1992 anymore

It is hilarious, but not surprising, to watch liberals praise Bill Clinton for Sunday’s televised crazed tantrum and cite it as a blueprint for the way democrats should stand up to “attacks,” as in questions about their records while in office, by Republicans. The bad news for the Clintons, and democrats in general, is that it’s not 1992 any more. These phony attempts to rewrite history no longer go unchallenged after being delivered by the liberals’ lap dog mainstream media.

As Al Gore famously said, a leopard doesn’t change his stripes, and neither do the Clintons. On those rare occasions when they are confronted with a serious question about the years of negligence, malfeasance and self-promotion that were the Prevaricator-in-Chief’s administration, the Clinton playbook dictates lie, and lie aggressively, angrily and self-righteously.

Ever since Bill Clinton erupted in a narcissistic rage at this simple question, liberal apologists have been robotically reciting one response to Chris Wallace’s very reasonable question “I understand that hindsight is always 20/20, but the question is, why didn’t you connect the dots and put him out of business?” Their answer is the threadbare Michael Moore charge about the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief entitled—let’s all say it together–“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US.” On Monday, September 25, 2006, on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, the Left’s favorite sad sack, the pathetic Cindy Sheehan brought it up. On Tuesday, September 26, 2006, Clinton apologist Paul Begala mentioned it on the “Today” show. Most notably, later that same day Hillary Clinton said “I’m certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report titled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,’ he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team.”

Liberals have been trying to make hay out of this document for years, perhaps taking their lead from the Left’s leading lying lardsack, Michael Moore. The porky prevaricator made much of it in his crockumentary “Fahrenheit 9/11.” Recall democrat political hack Richard Ben-Veniste, a man who desperately wishes someone would invent a time machine so he can return to 1974, demanding that Condoleeza Rice recite the title of this PDB, but only the title, during his grandstanding performance at the political theater that was the 9/11 commission hearings. At the time, knowledgeable observers couldn’t figure out what the drama was all about, since the New York Times reported on this report on 5/16/02, followed by Newsweek in its 5/27/02 issue. Then we realized that, as usual, the left was attempting to gain a political advantage by misleading the public with half-truths, distortion and spin, not only by pretending that the title of this PDB was a huge Bush-busting bombshell, but also by limiting Ms. Rice’s testimony to the title of the PDB.

That’s because the August 6, 2001 PDB that the libs are so fond of citing contains nothing but historical information about al Qaeda’s plans during the 1990’s, when you know who was president, and further contains nothing that would help the government avoid an attack. Consider some of the substance of this PDB:

“Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S.”
Since Bin Ladin declared war on all US citizens in 1996, is that really a revelation?

“A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.”
None of the 9/11 hijackers were from New York, were they?

“FBI information since that time [1998] indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”
Were federal buildings attacked on 9/11/01? I must have missed that.

“[T]he FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.”
No mention here of box cutters or airplanes used as weapons.

As you can see, a reading of the report itself, not just the title, demonstrates that the Bush administration did not ignore a warning that would have prevented 9/11. Once again, the liberals are lying to try to gain political advantage.

Speaking of Presidential Daily Briefs, Senator Clinton, as it turns out, in December, 1998, your husband was given a PDB entitled “Bin Laden Preparing to Hijack U.S. Aircraft and Other Attacks.” Interestingly, this PDB is all about hijacking, which you may recall, Senator, is what happened on 9/11. Just how seriously did he take that, Senator? Oh, I know. He probably “tried” to do something, but couldn’t get the FBI and/or CIA to certify something. Democrats harken back to the days when Bill Clinton was president, but as it turns out, even when he was, he wasn’t in charge.

The fact is that according to Michael Scheuer, a 22-year CIA veteran and chief of the Osama bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorism Center from 1996-1999, had eight to ten chances to get bin Laden and refused to try.

The bad news for democrats is that, contrary to their delusional view of the world, most Americans who saw Bill Clinton’s on-air meltdown don’t consider it a rallying cry to man the battle stations against the current evil regime. They see it for what it is, more evidence of the fact that twice the American people elected a sociopath as president, a man more interested in pursuing his own personal pleasure and promoting his self-image than protecting our country