Really, I had wanted to raise the level of discourse around here but when you're dealing with a hideously dishonest, putrid, steaming turd like Kate McMillan, well, civility just has to take a back seat.
Recall Kate's article that I linked to previously, where Kate clearly suggests who's at fault for the terrorist attack of 9/11:
Does anyone else get the impression that had the Clintons redirected even a fragment of the red hot burning lust they exhibit for the acquisition of personal political power to the task of protecting their nation's interests, there might well be a pair of towers still standing in New York CIty today?
Ah, so it was the Clintons' fault was it, Kate? Sadly, I beg to differ, as does history (all emphasis gleefully added):
Clinton Aides Plan to Tell Panel Of Warning Bush Team on Qaeda
Senior Clinton administration officials called to testify next week before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks say they are prepared to detail how they repeatedly warned their Bush administration counterparts in late 2000 that Al Qaeda posed the worst security threat facing the nation -- and how the new administration was slow to act...
''Until 9/11, counterterrorism was a very secondary issue at the Bush White House,'' said a senior Clinton official, speaking on condition of anonymity. ''Remember those first months? The White House was focused on tax cuts, not terrorism. We saw the budgets for counterterrorism programs being cut.''
And let's all remember how swiftly the Bush administration leapt to the defense when the time came:
While Bush vacationed, 9/11 warnings went unheard.
... The revelation came this morning, when CIA Director George Tenet was on the stand. Timothy Roemer, a former Democratic congressman, asked him when he first found out about the report from the FBI's Minnesota field office that Zacarias Moussaoui, an Islamic jihadist, had been taking lessons on how to fly a 747. Tenet replied that he was briefed about the case on Aug. 23 or 24, 2001.
Roemer then asked Tenet if he mentioned Moussaoui to President Bush at one of their frequent morning briefings. Tenet replied, "I was not in briefings at this time." Bush, he noted, "was on vacation." He added that he didn't see the president at all in August 2001. During the entire month, Bush was at his ranch in Texas. "You never talked with him?" Roemer asked. "No," Tenet replied. By the way, for much of August, Tenet too was, as he put it, "on leave."
And there you have it. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has made a big point of the fact that Tenet briefed the president nearly every day. Yet at the peak moment of threat, the two didn't talk at all. At a time when action was needed, and orders for action had to come from the top, the man at the top was resting undisturbed.
Throughout that summer, we now well know, Tenet, Richard Clarke, and several other officials were running around with their "hair on fire," warning that al-Qaida was about to unleash a monumental attack. On Aug. 6, Bush was given the now-famous President's Daily Brief (by one of Tenet's underlings), warning that this attack might take place "inside the United States." For the previous few years—as Philip Zelikow, the commission's staff director, revealed this morning—the CIA had issued several warnings that terrorists might fly commercial airplanes into buildings or cities.
And now, we learn today, at this peak moment, Tenet hears about Moussaoui. Someone might have added 2 + 2 + 2 and possibly busted up the conspiracy. But the president was down on the ranch, taking it easy. Tenet wasn't with him. Tenet never talked with him. Rice—as she has testified—wasn't with Bush, either. He was on his own and, willfully, out of touch.
Gosh, Kate, under the circumstances, who do you now think is responsible for 3,000 dead Americans on 9/11? No, really, don't rush, take your time and think about it. Connect those dots, it'll come to you, dear. Or maybe not. Which brings us to the brand new CC "Small Dead Animals" Challenge.
Quite simply, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that, on any given day, Kate McMillan will have published something dishonest. Seriously, I don't think it's unreasonable to propose that not a single day goes by that Blogging Tory Kate McMillan doesn't lie about something.
It could be a big, blatant lie; it could be a little, subtle lie; it might just be a delicate misrepresentation of some critical fact. But no matter how you define it, I'm willing to bet that Kate can't go even one day without her pathological dishonesty bubbling up in that septic tank she calls a blog.
Would anyone like a piece of that action? Come on, be a sport. Daddy wants a new pair of shoes.
MY GOD, EVEN HER COMMENTERS ARE LIARS: From that very same article, we have commenter "Warwick":
On the other hand, no one but Clinton had Sudan offer Bin Laden's head on a platter and he declined.
So he gets more blame than the norm.
And then there's reality (emphasis added):
Saudis Balked at Accepting U.S. Plan
WASHINGTON The government of Sudan, using a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in custody in Saudi Arabia, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.
The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at hotel in Arlington, Virginia, on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later.
Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept Mr. bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.
You really can smell the utter bullshit all the way from Delisle, can't you? It's no wonder I feel the need for a shower every time I get back from that cesspool of a blog.