When your country is governed by petulant adolescents

Keith ups the ante.

Transcript excerpt:

It is not important that the current President’s "portable public chorus" has described his predecessor’s tone as "crazed."

Our tone should be crazed. The nation’s freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as Al-Qaeda; the nation’s "marketplace of ideas" is being poisoned, by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would’ve quit. Nonetheless.

The headline is this: Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done, in five years. He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.


"At least I tried," he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. "That’s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried."

Thus in his supposed emeritus years, has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as liberating, as any, by anyone, in these last five long years.

The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama Bin Laden before 9/11.

The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors.

The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."

The Bush Administration… did… not… try.—

Don't believe him? Check out what Richard Ben-Veniste said yesterday on The Situation Room on CNN:

BLITZER: All right. You, in your questioning in your investigation, when you were a member of this commission, specifically asked President Bush about efforts after he was inaugurated on January 20, 2001, until 9/11, eight months later, what he and his administration were doing to kill bin Laden, because by then it was certified, it was authorized. It was, in fact, confirmed that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the USS Cole in December of 2000.

BEN-VENISTE: It's true, Wolf, we had the opportunity to interview President Bush, along with the vice president, and we spent a few hours doing that in the Oval Office. And one of the questions we had and I specifically had was why President Bush did not respond to the Cole attack. And what he told me was that he did not want to launch a cruise missile attack against bin Laden for fear of missing him and bombing the rubble.

And then I asked him, "Well, what about the Taliban?" The United States had warned the Taliban, indeed threatened the Taliban on at least three occasions, all of which is set out in our 9/11 Commission final report, that if bin Laden, who had refuge in Afghanistan, were to strike against U.S. interests then we would respond against the Taliban.

BLITZER: Now, that was warnings during the Clinton administration...

BEN-VENISTE: That's correct.

BLITZER: ... the final years of the Clinton administration.

BEN-VENISTE: That's correct.

BLITZER: So you the asked the president in the Oval Office -- and the vice president -- why didn't you go after the Taliban in those eight months before 9/11 after he was president. What did he say?

BEN-VENISTE: Well, now that it was established that al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole bombing and the president was briefed in January of 2001, soon after he took office, by George Tenet, head of the CIA, telling him of the finding that al Qaeda was responsible, and I said, "Well, why wouldn't you go after the Taliban in order to get them to kick bin Laden out of Afghanistan?"

Maybe, just maybe, who knows -- we don't know the answer to that question -- but maybe that could have affected the 9/11 plot.

BLITZER: What did he say?

BEN-VENISTE: He said that no one had told him that we had made that threat. And I found that very discouraging and surprising.

BLITZER: Now, I read this report, the 9/11 Commission report. This is a big, thick book. I don't see anything and I don't remember seeing anything about this exchange that you had with the president in this report.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, I had hoped that we had -- we would have made both the Clinton interview and the Bush interview a part of our report, but that was not to be. I was outvoted on that question.

BLITZER: Why?

BEN-VENISTE: I didn't have the votes.

BLITZER: Well, was -- were the Republican members trying to protect the president and the vice president? Is that what your suspicion is?

BEN-VENISTE: I think the question was that there was a degree of confidentiality associated with that and that we would take from that the output that is reflected in the report, but go no further. And that until some five years' time after our work, we would keep that confidential. I thought we would be better to make all of the information that we had available to the public and make our report as transparent as possible so that the American public could have that.

BLITZER: Now, you haven't spoken publicly about this, your interview in the Oval Office, together with the other commissioners, the president and the vice president. Why are you doing that right now?

BEN-VENISTE: Well, I think it's an important subject. The issue of the Cole is an important subject, and there has been a lot of politicization over this issue, why didn't President Clinton respond?

Well, we set forth in the report the reasons, and that is because the CIA had not given the president the conclusion that al Qaeda was responsible. That did not occur until some point in December. It was reiterated in a briefing to the -- to the new president in January.

BLITZER: Well, let me stop you for a second. If former President Clinton knew in December...

BEN-VENISTE: Right.

BLITZER: ... that the CIA and the FBI had, in his words, certified that al Qaeda was responsible, he was still president until January 20, 2001. He had a month, let's say, or at least a few weeks to respond.

Why didn't he?

BEN-VENISTE: Well, I think that was a question of whether a president who would be soon leaving office would initiate an attack against a foreign country, Afghanistan. And I think that was left up to the new administration. But strangely, in the transition there did not seem to be any great interest by the Bush administration, at least none that we found, in pursuing the question of plans which were being drawn up to attack in Afghanistan as a response to the Cole.

BLITZER: Now, as best of my recollection, when you went to the Oval Office with your other commissioners, the president and the vice president did that together. That was a joint interview.

BEN-VENISTE: At the request of the president.

BLITZER: Did the vice president say anything to you? Did he know that this warning had been given to the Taliban, who were then ruling Afghanistan, if there's another attack on the United States, we're going to go after you because you harbor al Qaeda? And there was this attack on the USS Cole.

BEN-VENISTE: The vice president did not at that point volunteer any information about the Cole.

BLITZER: So what's your -- did the president say to you -- did the president say, you know, "I made a mistake, I wish we would have done something"? What did he say when you continually -- when you pressed him? And I know you're a former prosecutor, you know how to drill, try to press a point.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, the president made a humorous remark about the fact that -- asking me whether I had ever lost an argument, and I reminded him that -- or I informed him that I, too, had two daughters. And so we passed that.

He made his statement about the state of his knowledge, and I accepted that as a given, although I was surprised considering the number of people who continued on, including Richard Clarke. So that information was there and available, but the question of why we did not respond to the Cole, I think it was an important lapse, quite frankly.

I think that we would have sent a message to the Taliban and we would have sent a message to al Qaeda. It could have conceivably -- I don't know the answer to this, but conceivably it could have had an affect on whether Sheikh Mullah and -- Omar.

BLITZER: Mullah Mohammed Omar, the leader of the Taliban.

BEN-VENISTE: Omar, right -- would have continued to harbor bin Laden and al Qaeda in their country.

This is stunning. First, we have Wolf Blitzer repeating the Republican talking point that 9/11 was Clinton's fault by broaching the notion that Bill Clinton should have invaded Afghanistan before leaving office. Can you imagine the squawking by Republicans if Clinton had done that? Clinton was handed the Somalia disaster by George Herbert Walker Bush, and knew the problems a new Administration has in dealing with an inherited crisis. So instead, the outgoing Clinton Administration did the right thing and handed the new Bush Administration the plans and intelligence they would need to mount an attack -- AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CHOSE NOT TO DO ANYTHING.

Let's repeat that: George W. Bush had the information he needed, and CHOSE NOT TO DO ANYTHING.

So can we stop the "Clinton caused 9/11" bullshit now?

Second of all, Ben-Veniste's account shows the president on whose watch the 9/11 attacks took place cracking jokes about being pussy-whipped by his daughters.

No one is going to defend Bill Clinton for having an extramarital dalliance when he knew by then that the right wing was loaded for bear. Or for Dawg. But Olbermann is absolutely right: if there was a distraction, it was the distraction of Republicans turning an extramarital dalliance, and a president testifying about sex WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SEX AS SET FORTH BY THE JUDGE IN THE PAULA JONES CASE, into an impeachment.

You want to blame anyone for 9/11? Blame Congressional Republicans, blame the gasbags on the right who whipped Americans into a frenzy over a blue dress -- and blame the arrogance of the Bush Administration, who decided, like a rebellious teenager, that anything the Clinton Administration thought was important was by definition unimportant.

When this bunch took office, we heard a lot of noise about how now the grownups were in charge. Grownups? This bunch has been acting like the three-year-old, standing amidst the shards of the broken vase and the water on the carpet, blaming the family dog. They've been acting like the sullen teenager who, after bringing the car home with a dent in the side, insists that he has no idea how it happened.

George W. Bush has been blaming others for his failings all his life. The so-called news media, with the exception of Keith Olbermann, has been allowing him to continue to do for over five years now. It is time that we, the American people, do what Barbara and George Herbert Walker Bush never did with this kid: hold him accountable for his actions.