Hillary Clinton - "I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled `Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside United States,' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team," Hillary Clinton said. She was referring to a briefing Bush got a month before Sept. 11.

With the help of Thomas Joscelyn, all right-thinking people call "bullshit" on Mrs. Clinton. He points out that, "The warning signs collected during the Clinton administration are outlined in the bipartisan "Report of the Joint Inquiry into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001," which was jointly published by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in December 2002.

The document can be found here. And on page 124 we learn:

A classified document signed by the President in December 1998 read in part: “The Intelligence Community has strong indications that Bin Ladin intends to conduct or sponsor attacks inside the United States”.

Clinton signed it. Now re-read Hillary's statement and laugh at how she's been fooled again by her husband.

Regardless, I still agree with Rudy Giuliani's comments that it's time to focus on the future and stop playing the blame game.

However, after years of defending President Clinton generally in my posts since I've started blogging, I think his overreactions and lies on the Chris Wallace interview on Fox News Sunday are nothing short of reprehensible and I've lost whatever respect I've had for him. To claim that Republicans or Fox News put Wallace up to a "hit job" on the former president is ridiculous.

Just in case you think Fox News in general and Chris Wallace in particular don't ask tough questions of the Bush Adminsitration - here's a sampling of questions put to Condi Rice on 9/12, two weeks before the Clinton interview.

Now we've got Shiites fighting Sunnis, Muqtada al-Sadr — these are rivalries that go back centuries, tribal rivalries, religious rivalries. Aren't we involved in a terrible case of mission creep here that has nothing to do with the war on terror?

Secretary Rice, why didn't we finish the job in Afghanistan?

I'm sure a lot of Americans are saying, isn't it a — we had them on the run. We had the Taliban completely disrupted. Isn't it a failure to have allowed the Taliban to regroup?

Didn't you and the president ignore intelligence that contradicted your case?

She could take all that without going apesh*t on the interviewer - maybe she should be the next President.

**********
Now for some comic relief:

"Just when you think you have seen everything in this business," he tells us, "mankind has raised the bar another notch. Or lowered it." Former TV geek Dustin "Screech" Diamond stars in a 40-minute video in which he engages in a kinky three-way with two women, sources tell us. We can't get too graphic here, but word is that the action includes some bodily functions and an act known as a "Dirty Sanchez."

**********
Just curious - One of the biggest complaints about the way that the Bush administration has treated enemy combatants is, in the words of today's NY Times editorial, that "all Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.".

Now, I'm no fan of locking up innocent people without a trial, but if these "arrests" are made by Presidential fiat, doesn't it stand to reason that as soon as another President is elected these same people can be freed immediately? Hell, even Anatoly (Natan) Scharansky and Nelson Mandela weren't locked up "forever". How about a little less hysteria? I'll bet that our highly respected legal system has locked up more innocent people for crimes they didn't commit than the War on Terror ever will.