If I didn't know better -- and I don't -- I'd assume the liberal establishment was trying to destroy President Bush, from distorting his handling of the terrorist threat prior to 9-11 to trying to convince us the sky is falling in Iraq.
It was outright ludicrous (though reprehensible) when Hillary Clinton implied that Mr. Bush let 9-11 happen when she rhetorically asked, "What did the president know and when did he know it?" Yet the liberal establishment has relentlessly been trying to put teeth in Hillary's preposterous suggestion ever since. And Hillary has the audacity to tell us about vast conspiracies on the right?
But no matter what they tell us, Richard Clarke did not lay a glove on George Bush. He admitted that regardless of his complaints, we probably couldn't have prevented the 9-11 attacks. Nevertheless, the partisan media did its best to spotlight Clarke's book -- catapulting it to the top of the best-seller lists as if it contained a smoking gun against the president.
Next came John Dean, eternal darling of the liberal establishment because he turned on Richard Nixon during Watergate, releasing his inane book arguing that President Bush is more corrupt than Nixon was. And another Watergate media hero, Bob Woodward, is set to release his "blockbuster" further incriminating the Bush team.
In the meantime, Condoleezza Rice was hounded into testifying publicly, under oath before the 9-11 investigative commission, despite having testified for hours in private. But now that we've witnessed her testimony, we know the liberal establishment was simply setting a trap for her.
From the moment she was sworn in, belligerent Democratic commission members, like the self-worshipping Bob Kerrey, and hired gun Richard Ben-Veniste, treated this extraordinary woman like a hostile witness under cross-examination.
Their manifest purpose was not to hear Ms. Rice's recollection of the events, but to embarrass and discredit her, as evidenced by their ceaseless moralistic speechifying and their refusal to allow her to answer questions. Through their pseudo indignation, their disrespectful tone and other innuendo, they sought to create the fraudulent impression that Bush's negligence allowed 9-11 to happen.
The Democrats' mere selection of Ben-Veniste of Watergate and Whitewater fame is proof enough they were driven by partisanship rather than a desire to identify and solve problems. But their despicable treatment of Ms. Rice, along with the partisan media's negative report card of Ms. Rice's commendable performance, confirm the liberal establishment's nefarious agenda beyond any doubt.
The witch-hunters really shifted into high gear in pursuit of an August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB), which supposedly warned of Osama bin Laden's plan to hijack U.S. passenger planes, as if were a blueprint for the 9-11 attacks. But it was nothing of the kind.
The PDB didn't warn of the possibility of the planes being flown into buildings, nor predict that terrorists would use boxcutters. Indeed, as Mark Levin cogently demonstrates in an article for National Review Online, the PDB, as a predictor of the actual attacks, was so inaccurate that any action taken on it would have been of doubtful benefit.
The release of the PDB validates Ms. Rice's position that it was not specific enough to be actionable -- but you'd never know it if you rely on the partisan media for your news.
But this past weekend the partisan media outdid itself by further sensationalizing the terrorist-spawned violence in Iraq to prove the Bush Administration is mishandling the War on Terror.
Let me just give you a few of the examples of feigned media hysteria last weekend (bam, bam, bam):
-- The Associated Press reported, "Concern Mounts Over Growing Unrest in Iraq";
-- Newsweek's Eleanor Clift wrote, "No Apologies, Condi never expressed remorse during her 9/11 testimony. And Bush can't bring himself to admit he was wrong about Iraq. Welcome to a quagmire";
-- CNN's Bill Schneider argued that the August 6 PDB "could be seriously damaging" to the administration;
-- In its Saturday edition alone, the New York Times launched a feverish attack with these "news" stories: "Bush Was Warned of Possible Attack in U.S., Official Says," "Kerry Says Policy in Iraq Compromises U.S. Safety," "When U.S Aided Insurgents, Did it Breed Future Terrorists?" "Sony Pictures Buys Richard Clarke's Book for the Screen." And from the Times editorial page, "A Spanish Lesson," by Nicholas Kristof, arguing that "anti-Americanism is widespread around the globe and it will be one of President Bush's most important legacies;" and an op-ed by Yitzhak Nakash, "In Iraq, Give Peace a Chance."
Yes, we're definitely in the throes of a war, both abroad and at home.