Great discussion over at Daily Kos on how Bush is perceived to be more responsible than Bill Clinton for not capturing bin Laden and heading off 9/11.

Of course, partisanship plays a role in the answers. 71 percent of Republicans are too stupid too realize that Bill Clinton hasn’t been in office the last six years and blame him rather than the guy currently in office. You know — the one that talks a big game but hasn’t delivered squat.

Three things come to mind. First, Republicans generally point fingers and assign blame when things go wrong and Bill Clinton continues to be that scape-goat for their inability to govern. Remember, it was the Republicants who raised hell over Monica Lewinsky because it “dirtied” the Presidency, all the while you never heard a peep from one Republican about national security or concerns over al Qaeda. Second, George W. Bush has never delivered a single promise he has made while in the White House or while in the Governor’s mansion in Texas. I never understood what the big deal was with him running for President. Seriously, I cannot recall a single measure he put before the legislature During his time as Governor.  And finally, there is plenty of blame to pass around on this issue with every administration, Democrat and Republican since Truman and the creation of the Israeli state. As a nation we have done a poor job of trying to deal with the issues in an honest and unbiased manner.

Bill Clinton’s appearence on the Fox News Sunday program this past weekend did more than make for great political entertainment. It served as a rallying calls for Democrats to wakeup and start fighting the GOP and their spin control machines. Clinton’s appearence brings full-circle the role the once-President served within the party and our nation.

First it reminds us that the defeats we have suffered at the hands of manipulated elections, and whacked-out political strategies by Rove and friends does not mean becoming meek little lap dogs, it means fighting harder and louder than before. Second, not since the 1992 election have we seen “this” Bill Clinton. His actions as President offended many in the party due to his strange twist of bringing corporate-types into the party of FDR and LBJ with often dangerous results (NAFTA, welfare reform, etc.), so for the first time in many years it is time that the Democrats had a real candidate out front and center for the American voters.

Is Bill Clinton running? No, of course not. The Republicans made sure that no President could continue to serve the nation as long as FDR ever again. But Hillary Clinton is running in New York (a cake walk for sure), and may run in ’08 for the White House, and that means she will have the best political maestro in history working on her side. But more importantly, Bill Clinton has brought the terror issue out and said ‘hell no, we won’t take it anymore’, and for that Mr. President, we say “Thank You”.

John Dickerson at Slate says it best:

Bill Clinton wasn’t sandbagged, because he is a smart politician. He just spent several weeks fighting ABC over its interpretation of his administration’s hunt for Bin Laden. He knew the question was coming and he took advantage of it. Forty-three days before the election, he has provided a moment to rally party activists and attack the GOP at the heart of its perceived strength on handling terrorism.

If nothing else happens as a result of Clinton’s appearence, I hope that Pelosi and Reid learn a thing or two about being outspoken and larger than life in fighting the GOP. This party needed a wakeup call, and I think they just got it.

For years the Republicans have run around screaming about the wonderful job they are doing with terrorism, and how the country would not be in this mess were it not for Bill Clinton. Earlier this month they coaxed ABC to run a mocumentary about the lead up to the attacks on 9/11, with many parts that were out right fictional, much to the pleasure of the likes of Rush “Drug King” Limbaugh.

So, finally, Bill Clinton has his say, and he has it on Fox News, where it tells Chris Wallace to “sit there with that smug look on your face”. (By the way, there is a point where Bill Clinton asks Chris Wallace why he has never asked a Bush administration representative the same questions he is asking him, to which Wallace replies that he has and Clinton basically calls him a liar. Think Progress has done fact checking, and it looks like Clinton wins this round. Wallace in fact has had at least three opporunities to ask the same questions surrounding the 9/11 attacks and has never done so.)

And so the Republicans line up to cheer on Fox News (the same people who jeered them last week for contributing money to a gay journalists group), and point at Clinton as coming unhinged on the program. To me Bill Clinton appears to be more eloquent, more articulate and demonstrates a greater grasp of reality than George W. Bush ever has. Over on YouTube, there is a right-head who actually said:

His [Clinton's] narcissism, rambling answers and physical intimidation of Wallace are ridiculously embarrassing and far beneath a President.

WTF Mary! Um, if you exchanged “Wallace” with any global leader’s name you would have described George W. Bush.

In 2001 George Bush signed an executive order that turned over a Clinton executive order that set aside certain lands as “construction free” protection zones. According to the New York Times, a federal court in California has overturned that executive order:

U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Laporte ruled that the Bush administration failed to conduct necessary environmental studies before making changes that allowed states to decide how to manage individual national forests.

The 2001 rule prohibits logging, mining and other development on 58.5 million acres in 38 states and Puerto Rico, but the Bush administration replaced it in May 2005 with a process that required governors to petition the federal government to protect national forests in their states.

Once again, the Bush regime faces the music for obvious transgressions against the American people, their environment and the livelihood of future generations.