You Go, Girl!

Condoleezza Rice calls a spade a spade, or in this case, a liar a liar:

Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush Administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.

Everyone who isn't a Clinton sycophant knows he was lying because his mouth was moving.

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush Administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added.

The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton's claim that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice responded during the hour-long session.

Bill Clinton was, is, and has always been interested only in what is best for himself. Not the country, not our security, not even his own family as evidenced by his behavior with women other than his wife. It's all about Bill. The idea that he would try and help his successor regarding al Qaeda is ridiculous. He was obviously not interested during his entire term, why would he come up with a "comprehensive plan" when his presidency was over?

He's a pathetic weasel.

JASmius adds: And the novel thing is he's no longer making any effort to hide it. Tells me he knows his cherished "legacy" is toast.

Just a hunch, but it wouldn't surprise me to see Hillary triangulate off of hubby's outburst.

UPDATE: Guess not:

Senator Hillary Clinton has spoken up in support of her husband Bill’s defense of his anti-terror efforts, saying she’s tired of Democrats being pushed around on national security issues.

"I just think that my husband did a great job in demonstrating that Democrats are not going to take this,” she said on Monday in remarks reported by Newsday.

Take what? The truth? When have Democrats ever been able to take the truth? It never favors them, and nowhere less than on national security and terrorism.

Showing that my Clinton analysis muscles have gotten flabby, it fell to Bill Kristol to point out Mr. Bill's angle in this PR scrum:

"In this interview, Clinton rallied Democrats. He reminded them of their talking points on Bush's alleged passivity in his first eight months in office....

"If the Bush-Rove war-on-terror offensive stalls out this week . . . and Democrats do well in November, Bill Clinton can take credit, at a crucial moment, for discrediting the terror issue as a mere political ploy, and showing Democrats how ‘to fight back.’”

It won't and they won't because Bill Clinton is the least qualified man on the face of the planet to be attempting to "discredit" anybody on "the terror issue." His eruption only further discredited himself (especially after his furor over The Path to 9/11) and ought to have embarrassed the Democrats.

But, disconnected from reality as they are, it probably will rally them - right off another cliff. And then we can revel in the lefty conspiracy theories of when Bill Clinton sold out to Karl Rove.

ONE MORE UPDATE: The New York Post gleefully piles on:

Clinton insisted that his version is backed both by Clarke's book and public testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

In fact, Clarke told the commission a very different story during hours of private testimony behind closed doors - one that jibed with a 2002 background briefing he gave to reporters.

Back then, he said: "There was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush Administration. . . . [a] plan, strategy - there was no, nothing new."

Indeed, Clarke said, the Bush team in 2001 "changed the [Clinton] strategy from one of rollback [of] al Qaeda over five years to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline."

Bush, he added, took action on several "issues that had been on the table for a couple of years," such as instituting a new policy in Pakistan that convinced Islamabad "to break away from the Taliban" and boosting "CIA resources...for covert action five-fold to go after al Qaeda."

In fact, a 1999 Clarke after-action memo - the one top Clinton aide Sandy Berger later stole from the National Archives - identified national-security weaknesses so "glaring" that only sheer "luck" prevented a cataclysmic attack back then. [emphases added]

Eight years trumps eight months. Period. It is the one truth that not even Bill Clinton can escape.

LAST UPDATE - REALLY; SERIOUSLY; NO FOOLIN'; ON THE LEVEL: The American Thinker puts the lie to Sick Willie's claim that there was no GOP support for his getting Osama bin Laden.

I have to point out the contrast between Bill Clinton going on a network that doesn't kiss his ass and going ballistic at a single tough question and George W. Bush weathering a seven year fusillade of unprecedented personal abuse, defamation, vituperation, and character assassination, along with a full-blown insurrection of treasonous and dangerous national security leaks, and remaining cool as a cucumber.

If the Enemy Media were still practitioners of professional, objective journalism instead of propagandists for the Democrat Party, that entity would be defunct as Enron. The Land of Make-Believe would cease to exist. And America would be so much better off.

That is the message that Chris Wallace flushed out of that incompetent narcissist. It's the best PSA I've seen in years.

OKAY, ONE MORE UPDATE: Does Clinton's claim that Republicans were "obsessed with his obsession with getting bin Laden" not sound like classic psychological projection of his own party's obsession with "Bush's" war on terror?