…in case you missed it. He’s not so slick anymore. Tempus fugit.

Oh dear lord, please cleanse my heart of anger and resentment. I know that Divine Will is unknowable to man, but still I wonder how could that putz Al Gore win the Nobel Peace Prize when I did not? You remember how much I coveted that honor. You know how I pressed so hard for peace between Israel and the Palestinians in the waning days of my presidency.

It’s just so wrong! That scruffy bastard Arafat already had his Nobel, so what did he care? I mean we squeezed Ehud Barak to give Araft 90 percent of what he demanded. And he still walked! You call that peace making? I even sent Maddy Albright chasing after him to his car, begging him to come back and negotiate. Maybe I shoulda sent the Village People, if you believe the rumors.

So what does Gore do? He turns a slideshow into a movie, gets smooched by Hollywood, flies around making speeches (snorrrrre) and that’s making peace? Christ!

Humbly yours,

Bill Clinton

Hillary voted against condemning the MoveOn.org “Betrayus” ad. This leaves Bill to finesse things. As Newsbusters reports, Willie went on CNN’s Situation Room and blasted Republicans as “disingenuous.”

“This was classic bait-and-switch…. These Republicans that are all upset about Petraeus - this is one newspaper ad. These are the people that ran a television ad in Georgia with Max Cleland, who lost half his body in Vietnam – in the same ad, with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. That’s what the Republicans did.”

Really? MoveOn called General Petraeus a liar and traitor. What did the Republicans say about Max Cleland? See for yourself:

Sounds to me like the ad was discussing Cleland’s voting record. If that’s off limits in a campaign ad, what’s left?

Remember, this is the ad that has Democrats whining that Republicans question their patriotism.

The issue in Cleland’s votes was the Department of Homeland Security. Bush had first resisted the idea of creating a new bureaucracy, then seized the issue from the Democrats and made it his own.

Democrats held things up because they wanted employees of the new bureaucracy to be unionized — that was the substance of Cleland’s no votes. The ad simply noted the stakes (Osama et al) and cited Cleland’s legislative record.

Democrats regularly accuse Republicans of wanting to destroy Earth, of not caring about children, of not caring about cripples and of not caring about black people in New Orleans.

If they can’t take it, they shouldn’t dish it.

Bill Clinton regularly touts his wife’s bid for the White House by telling crowds that leaders around the globe are pulling for Hillary Clinton’s election in 2008.

“Every African leader I talked to, every single one when I was there, without any prodding from me, said, ‘For God sakes, I hope Hillary wins. We don’t like disliking America here,’” Bill Clinton said at a fund-raiser for her last month.

Yet none of the leaders the former President cited will back him up, the Daily News has found.

Let’s review: which president turned a blind eye to genocide as 800,000 Rwandans were hacked to death with machetes?

Bill Clinton.

Who cried crocodile tears for Africans with AIDS and did nothing?

Bill Clinton.

Who actually came through with money for African AIDS?

George W. Bush.

Which president negotiated an end to the Sudanese civil war that killed an estimated 1.9 million people and uprooted another 4 million?

George W. Bush.

Nothing can clean the grime off the Clintons.

Touchy about Bill Clinton’s weak treatment of the growing terror threat on his watch, they threw a fit a year ago over the airing of ABC’s “The Path to 9/11.” They had Democrat senators write a letter to threaten ABC with tough times with the FCC if they didn’t make changes to please the Clintonistas.

The miniseries ran, got excellent ratings and some Emmy nominations. But, because of pressure from the Clintons, Disney has not rereun the series nor released it on DVD. In effect, they are forgoing millions in easy profits because of political pressure.

…one of the miniseries’ many producers, said he was told by a top executive at ABC Studios that “if Hillary weren’t running for president, this wouldn’t be a problem.”

No doubt, ABC or Disney will produce yet another tale about some noble artist who stood up to the McCarthy-era blacklist, allowing them to forget their current cowardice.

Exactly what made the Clintons go ballistic? Bill’s failure to kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance. The miniseries depicted then-NSA head Sandy Berger refusing, on Clinton’s orders, to give the order. (Clinton later lied on Chris Wallace about this. Watch him get red in the face.)

In 2002, Clinton asked Sandy Berger to handle things for the 9/11 Commission. Berger didn’t just handle things, he stole classified documents from the national archives and destroyed them. To this day, he has never explained what he was hiding for the Clintons.

Berger received a slap on the wrist ($50,000) and the temporary loss of his security clearance. One would think that such behavior would render him unfit for further public service. But that would be underestimating the corruption of the Clintons.

As Jonathan Adler writes…

A Sandy Burglar Comeback?

In a report on the efforts of Democratic presidential candidates to attract the “best and brightest” policy advisors for their campaigns, Newsweek columnist Michael Hirsh reports that former national security advisor and document pilferer Sandy Berger is one of the three foreign policy experts most relied upon by Senator Hillary Clinton in her White House bid. No word on whether he would have a White House position — or security clearance — in a potential Clinton Administration.

UPDATE: For prior Sandy Burglar posts, see here.

FURTHER UPDATE: Why do I find the report that Hillary Clinton is using Sandy Berger as one of her key foreign policy advisors so unnerving? Because it shows both poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger’s legal and ethical breaches. I also find it quite surprising. Hillary Clinton has impressed me as a Senator and as a candidate. Whatever her other faults, she is intelligent, savvy, disciplined, and determined; by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field. All this makes her apparent inclusion of Berger in her foreign policy “triumverate” all the more difficult to fathom.

For those who forget, Berger repeatedly stole and destroyed classified documents, resulting in the temporary loss of his security clearance. Berger has never provided a plausible explanation for his actions. By voluntarily giving up his law license, he avoided a cross-examination from bar counsel, so we still do not know precisely what he was doing and why. Indeed, the only assurance that Berger did not destroy unique copies of classified national security documents — such as copies of reports containing notations in the margins and the like — comes from Berger himself, something that the 9/11 Commission was not told when it was preparing its report (as I noted here).

Dog bites man. Clinton gets caught lying. Advance to approximately 8:30 to hear Slick Willie claim to have put a hit on Bin Laden.

Newsweek, after going through the newly released CIA report:

In September 2006, during a famous encounter with Fox News anchor Wallace, Clinton erupted in anger and waived his finger when asked about whether his administration had done enough to get bin Laden. “What did I do? What did I do?” Clinton said at one point. “I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.”

Clinton appeared to have been referring to a December 1999 Memorandum of Notification (MON) he signed that authorized the CIA to use lethal force to capture, not kill, bin Laden. But the inspector general’s report made it clear that the agency never viewed the order as a license to “kill” bin Laden—one reason it never mounted more effective operations against him. “The restrictions in the authorities given the CIA with respect to bin Laden, while arguably, although ambiguously, relaxed for a period of time in late 1998 and early 1999, limited the range of permissible operations,” the report stated. (Scheuer agreed with the inspector general’s findings on this issue, but said if anything the report was overly diplomatic. “There was never any ambiguity,” he said. “None of those authorities ever allowed us to kill anyone. At least that’s what the CIA lawyers told us.” A spokesman for the former president had no immediate comment.)

That’s not all. The CIA and NSA refused to share critical intelligence:

U.S. counter-terrorism efforts against Al Qaeda were damaged by a fierce turf battle between the CIA and the National Security Agency (then under Hayden’s leadership) over access to transcripts of intercepted communications picked up by the government’s spy satellites and listening posts. Throughout the late 1990s right up to 9/11, the two U.S. intelligence agencies appear to have sharply feuded over the issue. The NSA eavesdropped on the conversations of top Al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the globe. It then prepared verbatim written transcripts of this raw “signals intelligence” (known as SIGINT in the intel world).

But Hayden’s NSA apparently wouldn’t share the transcripts with the CIA, which was responsible for tracking Al Qaeda operatives overseas. The NSA’s “unwillingness to share raw SIGINT transcripts with CIA…made it more difficult for CTC [the Counter-Terrorism Center] to perform its mission against Al Qaeda,” the report stated. (The NSA also snubbed the FBI, whose job it was to hunt down terrorist operatives within the United States.)

If that happened under Bush, we’d be hearing all about his “incompetence.”