E.J. Dionne tries to justify Bill Clinton's childish blow up at Chris Wallace last Sunday by claiming that the Bush administration and its surrogates have long been shrewdly and disingenuously attacking Mr. Clinton's failure to deal with the growing terrorist threat during the 1990s. Therefore, according to Dionne, Clinton was justified in finally pushing back against attacks from the right.

The problem is that Mr. Dionne cannot cite one single, solitary instance of an administration official attacking Bill Clinton explicitly on his handling of the terror threat. All that Dionne has is Rush Limbaugh attacking Clinton just three weeks after 9/11. Last time I checked Rush Limbaugh is not an official spokesman for the administration, nor does he consult with the administration before he makes arguments or assertions.

A new tactic of the left in this country, that is becoming more pronounced during just this last week, is to try and rewrite the history of the period beginning approximately in the mid-1990s all the way up to the attacks of 9/11. Bill Clinton, the left would have you believe, was oh so concerned and consumed with bin Laden and Al Qaeda, but George W. Bush and his administration, upon taking office, had little or no interest in developing a plan to fight Al Qaeda or in following the so-called "recommendations" and "strategy" for fighting bin Laden that Bill Clinton claims that he left for Mr. Bush.

This revisionism by the left is as absurd as it is hilarious. If the left and the Democrat party really wish to stake their claim to a return to power in November on Bill Clinton's record of fighting terrorism versus that of the Bush administration, than they have no chance at returning to a majority in either house of Congress.

The fact is that from 1993 onward Bill Clinton never had Al Qaeda at the forefront of his mind, he never developed a comprehensive plan fight the growth of that terror organization, and there is no evidence that he ever intended to take any action which would lead to the destruction of those terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, or to the hunting down and actual killing of bin Laden himself. Yet Mr. Clinton's surrogates have been all over the talkshow circuit this last week arguing that he took the threat of Al Qaeda seriously, while Mr. Bush did nothing for eight months.

Leaving aside the fact that Mr. Bush's administration couldn't start its transition until late December of 2000, because of Al Gore's attempt to steal the election of 2000, one has to only do the simple math to realize that Mr. Clinton was in office for eight years, while Mr. Bush was in office for less than eight months. Any person with a reasonable amount of common sense can only look upon Mr. Clinton's and his surrogates claims of great determination against Al Qaeda with nothing less than abundant skepticism.

Eight years versus less than eight months.

That is what the left and the Democrat party wish to stake their claim to a victory in November on. Very few in the Republican Party have wished to look back and gratuitously cast stones against Mr. Clinton for his great failure. But he and his party bring this on by ceaselessly attempting to morph the problems that the U.S. is experiencing in Iraq into an overall criticism of Mr. Bush's handling of the fight against terror, while simultaneously attempting to massively and disingenuously exaggerate Mr. Clinton's efforts at fighting al Qaeda prior to January 20, 2001.

E.J. Dionne is simply the latest pundit on the left to try his hand at this revisionism. My view is that if the left and the Democrat party continue to remind America, as Mr. Clinton has just done with his defensive outburst at Wallace, of their great failure to fight al Qaeda during its infancy and adolescence then they will not and should not even come close to regaining any majority this November.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has flatly contradicted Bill Clinton's weekend claim that he left the Bush administration a "comprehensive" anti-terror strategy in 2001. She also said Clinton's claim that the incoming Bush administration did little in its first eight months to combat the growing threat of terrorism was "flatly false."

Bubba really does need to get the evidence of his "comprehensive" strategy out there soon, or the American people might just conclude that the claim is just another in a series of very, very numerous lies that Clinton has told the American people.

So, Mr. Clinton, let's hear more about that "comprehensive" plan, who you left it with and precisely who left it.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas has seen the NIE report, and he wants it released in its entirety, so that the American people can form their own judgments independently of mainstream media and Democrat party spin:

We should all recognize the delicate balance, particularly in wartime, between national security and the public's right to know. But I am a strong advocate for open government and believe that on an issue this important, the report should be declassified to the greatest extent possible so that the American people can reach their own conclusions based on a full and accurate reading of the report, rather than having to rely on cherry-picked information by the New York Times and others. This selective leaking, and selective reporting, is unfortunate. But after having reviewed this report myself, I am confident in the ability of the American people to form their own conclusions and recognize for themselves, the importance of aggressively prosecuting the war on terror.

It looks as if the Democrats may have been snookered again by a selective leak. They are already apparently calling for a closed session to discuss the report, which was just voted down by the Republican-controlled House. Democrats didn't dare think that the president, as he did this morning, would request that John Negroponte de-classify and release the entire report. But that is exactly what has occurred. The Democrats once again have tried to play cheap politics with the war on terror, and it appears now that it could very well come back to bite them hard.

Mel Gibson is back, and he would at least appear to be trying to get back into the good graces of the Hollywood establishment by taking a shot at the US mission in Iraq.

Michael Medved (via Dean Barnett) makes a good point:

If these antiwar comments are the beginning of an ill-considered, organized campaign to get back into the good graces of the Hollywood establishment that gave him the Oscar for ‘Braveheart,’ so he can show he’s not different from them and march arm-in-arm with Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon, there will be a great deal of disgust from the people who have enjoyed Mel’s movies in the past.

I had seen previews of the interview last week, but was still startled when I watched Bill Clinton's sitdown with Fox's Chris Wallace. I don't believe that I have ever seen Bill Clinton so angry and arguably unhinged.

It was the "right wingers" who did nothing, according to Clinton's revised version of history, while he at least "tried" but "failed" to eliminate the threat of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Apparently, Clinton must be referring to "right wingers" such as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney et al.. The former president conveniently forgets that George W. Bush and his administration were in power less than eight months before September 11, 2001, while Clinton was in power for eight years and did virtually nothing stop the cancer of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. That malignant cancer grew and grew throughout the Clinton tenure. The country heard little about al Qaeda, or Mr. Clinton's claimed attempts at eliminating it, but rather heard a lot more about stained blue dresses and "vast right wing conspiracies."

A little pity must be shed for Bill Clinton, because he must know deep in his heart that 50 years from now the history books are more likely to talk about the blue dress than his "attempts" to eliminate Osama bin Laden. Mr. Clinton does not like to be reminded of this fact, as both the interview with Chris Wallace and the recent ABC miniseries "The path To 9/11" have done. It is not an enviable position to be in to be reminded of one's almost total failure to deal with such a looming threat to America, and the catastrophic consequences that resulted from that failure. The pity one might extend to Clinton ends abruptly, however, the moment he shamelessly attempts to extend his failure to "right wingers."

The "vast right-wing conspiracy" claimed by Hillary Clinton in 1998, and the "right wingers" who did nothing to stop 9/11, according to Bill Clinton, are a reminder to this country of the almost complete insignificance of the Clinton administration. Bill Clinton did nothing to stop the threat of all Osama bin Laden, and he has inadvertently once again brought that fact to the forefront of the American consciousness.

Bill Clinton cannot revise the history of his total ineffectiveness at eliminating the terrorist threat to America, and all the blustering, finger-pointing, furious indignation and squinted eyes will never change the essential truth of his failure.

A French report is claiming that Osama bin Laden died on August 23. The likely cause, according to the report, was typhoid. Skepticism abounds in the US intelligence community, and skepticism is highly appropriate, given the fact that Osama bin Laden has been "dead" several times since 9/11.

A reporter over at Fox news just noted that if the report about bin Laden's death accurate then we probably would have seen a couple of things happen: An uptick of activity on various Islamic web sites and a power struggle within Al Qaeda to replace bin Laden. Neither of these appear to have happened.

Until conclusive proof comes on to the scene, it is best to treat this as either an Al Qaeda decoy to distract the search for bin Laden, or another in a long series of bin Laden death hoaxes.

To heck with the UN, and to heck with the ceasefire, as Hassan Nasrallah publicly admits that Hezbollah will not disarm:

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah told supporters Friday that his guerrillas will not surrender their weapons until a stronger Lebanese government is in place — including 20,000 rockets his group claims to still have after its 34-day war with
Israel.

In his first public appearance since Israel launched its massive offensive against Hezbollah guerrillas on July 12, Nasrallah repeatedly attacked the Western-backed government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora, which he called weak and unable to protect Lebanon from Israel.

Speaking to hundreds of thousands of flag-waving supporters in bombed-out southern Beirut, he said giving up Hezbollah's weapons now "under this government ... means leaving Lebanon exposed before Israel to kill and detain and bomb whoever they want, and clearly we will not accept that."

Of course, no one ever believed that Hezbollah would actually follow through with the ceasefire and disarm, but at least Nasrallah has now come out and admitted what was obvious to all.

He really likes Hugo Chavez, and his attack on President Bush.

"Who'd have ever imagined it?"

His Press Release:

WASHINGTON - I want to express my extreme displeasure with statements by the President of Venezuela attacking U.S. President George Bush in such a personal and disparaging way during his remarks at the United Nations General Assembly.

It should be clear to all heads of government that criticism of Bush Administration policies, either domestic or foreign, does not entitle them to attack the President personally.

George Bush is the President of the United States and represents the entire country. Any demeaning public attack against him is viewed by Republicans and Democrats, and all Americans, as an attack on all of us.

I feel that I must speak out now since the Venezuelan government has been instrumental in providing oil at discounted prices to people in low income communities who have suffered increases in rent as heating oil prices have risen sharply. By offering this benefit to people in need, Venezuela has won many friends in poor communities of New York and other states. I am surprised that American oil companies have not stepped up to provide that kind of assistance to the poor.

Venezuela's generosity to the poor, however, should not be interpreted as license to attack President Bush. Those who take issue with Bush Administration policies have no right to attack him personally. It was not helpful when President Bush referred to certain nations as an "axis of evil." Neither is it helpful for a head of state to use the sacred halls of the United Nations to insult President Bush.

I'm stunned and surprised, but pleasantly so, by Rep. Charles Rangel's comments today about Hugo Chavez's speech of yesterday:

"You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State."

And then there is this:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One of President George W. Bush's fiercest political opponents at home took his side on Thursday, calling Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez a "thug" for his remark that Bush is like the devil.

"Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference, referring to Chavez' comments in a U.N. General Assembly speech on Wednesday.

"Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had, speaking at the United Nations," said Pelosi, a frequent Bush critic. "He demeaned himself and he demeaned Venezuela."

I'd like to think that the motive of Pelosi and Rangel is first and foremost patriotic, which I am sure it is, but they surely must also recognize that it would be politically dangerous for them to remain silent after such a blatantly disgusting attack on Mr. Bush by the punk Chavez.

"If this event happened then where did it happen?"

This is what Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asked Anderson Cooper, about the Holocaust, yesterday on CNN. "The where is the main question...it was not in Palestine."

No, Mr. Ahmadinejad, it wasn't in Palestine. You might try Eastern Poland for starters. You know, places like Sobibor, Auschwitz, etc.

The foolishness of this buffoon knows no limits.

Times Online:

The former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey of Clifton has issued his own challenge to “violent” Islam in a lecture in which he defends the Pope’s “extraordinarily effective and lucid” speech.

Lord Carey said that Muslims must address “with great urgency” their religion’s association with violence. He made it clear that he believed the “clash of civilisations” endangering the world was not between Islamist extremists and the West, but with Islam as a whole.

“We are living in dangerous and potentially cataclysmic times,” he said. “There will be no significant material and economic progress [in Muslim communities] until the Muslim mind is allowed to challenge the status quo of Muslim conventions and even their most cherished shibboleths.”

Lord Carey’s address came as the man who shot and wounded the last Pope wrote to Pope Benedict XVI to warn him that he was in danger. Mehmet Ali Agca, the Turkish gunman who tried to murder John Paul II in 1981 and is now in prison in Turkey, urged the Pope not to visit the country in November.

I expect the marches, fury and more threats of violence to follow from Islamofascists who cannot stand to hear the truth about how they have perverted their own religion.

The new USA Today/Gallup Poll has Republicans tied 48-48 with Democrats.

So much for that political tsuname that was going to easily bring Nancy Pelosi to the speakership of the House.

Heh:

WASHINGTON, Sept 19 (Reuters) - A U.S. senator compared Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hitler and made fun of his name on Tuesday during a congressional hearing on the U.S. strategy to end Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program.

"Ahmadinejad — I call him Ahmad-in-a-head — I think he's a Hitler type of person," Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich said during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

"He has made it clear that he wants to destroy Israel. He has made it clear he doesn't believe in the Holocaust. He's a, he's a — we all know what he is," the senator added.