"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 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," she said yesterday.
Democrats have long tried to pretend it's the "smoking gun" that proves Bush "knew" and could have prevented the 9/11 attacks - though it did nothing of the kind.
Of course, it is true that Bill Clinton never got such a briefing.
Instead, he got:
* The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 U.S. airmen.
* The bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224, including 12 Americans, and wounded 5,000.
* The 2000 attack on USS Cole, which killed 17 sailors.
And so on.
All those demonstrated that al Qaeda meant to kill Americans - as many as possible.
And those attacks, of course, all followed the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
As the 9/11 Commission report details: Despite irrefutable evidence of the threat from Islamic terrorists, "there was no National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism [undertaken] between 1995 and 9/11. There was no comprehensive review of what the intelligence community knew [about al Qaeda] and what it did not know and what that meant."
Indeed, the report concludes, Clinton's flaccid response may have led bin Laden to make the "inference that such attacks, at least on the level of the Cole, were risk-free."
In contrast, Bush - almost immediately upon taking office - "began developing a new strategy with the stated goal of eliminating the al Qaeda threat [to America] within three to five years."
Indeed, even before that August 2001 briefing, Bush ordered the deployment of armed unmanned aircraft "to kill [Osama] bin Laden or his lieutenants."
It's interesting reading.
Both Clintons should try it."
We were repeatedly attacked, and Slick Willy needed a briefing to urge him to fight back? THIS is how RodHam excuses his ineptitude?