(Mr. Daley is the Owner of the Daley Times-Post.  To view more of Mr, Daley's writings please visit his site)

During her appearance before the September 11 commission on April 8th, (transcript), Condoleezza Rice was asked by Commissioner Tim Roemer to comment upon an August 6, 2001 President's Daily Brief (PDB) titled 'Osama bin Laden determined to attack the United States'. Even though Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste had, earlier in the hearing, attempted to characterized the document as a specific threat assessment, only to be corrected by Dr. Rice, she rightly reiterated that the PDB in question was merely an historical document, remarking that it had been presented to the president in response to inquiries he had previously made concerning Al-Qaeda activities. She pointed out that it contained no new information about the terrorist organization's intentions or specific plans to commit any terrorist acts in this country.

She went on to say, in response to Mr. Roemer's inquiry, "I don't think you, frankly, had to have that report to know that bin Laden would like to attack the United States." Certainly that is the case, considering the fact that we've known about Al-Qaeda's intentions toward our civilian population since at least 1993, when they first bombed the World Trade Center. Still, the following day the news media was buzzing with reports that the president knew more about the 9/11 attacks than he had previously let on, spotlighting the title of the PDB as if that alone was evidence of deception and ineptness at the highest level of the administration.

As I watched the nearly three-hour long interrogation of the president's National Security Adviser, I became keenly aware of the fact that the tone of some of the commissioners, most notably Bob Kerrey and Richard

Ben-Veniste, was one of bombast and animosity. Their questions were often leading, and they seemed to expect simple yes-or-no answers to the various complex questions they asked, that is, when they weren't busy trying to stop Dr, Rice from answering certain other questions that they apparently didn't want answered, at least not publicly.

For instance, when Commissioner Ben-Veniste asked "Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?", Rice

responded by answering the second of the two questions first, yet was cut off when she attempted to address the first one. "I would like to finish my point here." said Rice after being interrupted by the

commissioner, to which he replied, astonishingly enough, "I didn't know there was a point." Rice then pointed out that he had just asked if it was true that the PDB warned of attacks, only to have Mr. Ben-Veniste

remark "I asked you what the title was." It was obvious at that point that he was utterly disinterested in finding out if the PDB actually warned of a specific threat or not. He was only concerned with compelling Dr. Rice to say the name of the document in front of the TV cameras.

As a matter of fact, all of the liberal members of the commission assumed condescending and, in some cases, vitriolic attitudes during the course of the hearing. The more confrontational of them implied in more

ways than one that the Bush administration should have known the 9/11 attacks were coming, and that it was either too incompetent to act or simply ignored the warnings it was given. What they did not bring to

light is what exactly they believe the Bush administration could have done differently at that time which would have prevented such atrocities from happening.

Think about it. Let's assume that the president was made aware that terrorists were going to hijack commercial airplanes and fly them into buildings at some unknown time and at an unidentified location in the

country. What measures would he have had to take to make sure that such an attack never took place? The answer is, basically, everything he's done since 9/11. Now ask yourself this, do you believe that the liberals

in Congress would have gone along with enacting the president's current policies prior to that date? Before you answer that, ask yourself the following questions.

1.) Who voted to radically cut funding to both the CIA and the military, and set up grossly ill-conceived and painfully naive policies concerning the use by our intelligence agencies of individuals connected to

criminal enterprises across the globe, essentially decimating our nation's ground intelligence capabilities worldwide?

2.) Who intentionally put up legal barriers which seriously restricted, practically to the point of non-existence, cooperation between law enforcement agencies like the FBI and the entire intelligence gathering community?

3.) Who failed to act against Al-Qaeda and similar groups in any substantial way following the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombing of the U.S. military barracks (Khobar Towers) in Saudi Arabia,

the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa and the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen?

4.) Who was it that decided the issue of international terrorism should be treated as a law enforcement problem instead of a national security or military one for nearly a decade?

5.) Who had the opportunity to take Osama Bin Laden into custody on more than one occasion yet decided against doing so each time?

6.) Who screamed bloody murder when they thought President Bush was going to begin a campaign of racial profiling against Arab immigrants immediately following 9/11, even though there was no evidence to suggest that he had any intention of doing so?

7.) Who are the first people to donate their time and money to defend individuals suspected of terrorist activities, and flock to foreign countries in defense of terrorist supporting dictators once our president has decided to take stern measures against them?

8.) Who is it that believed Bill Clinton without reservation when he claimed that Saddam Hussein had created weapons of mass destruction and was a sincere threat to the United States, yet turned against President

Bush when he used the same intelligence Clinton had previously sighted, in order to actually do something about the situation instead from merely talking tough?

I think we all know the common answer to these many questions, yet in spite of the fact that LIBERALS showed a complete unwillingness to take the threat of terrorism seriously prior to the September 11 attacks and have repeatedly attempted to hinder our progress in the war ever since, we are now supposed to believe that they would have supported the notion of George W, Bush preemptively targeting Arab terrorist suspects in this country during his first eight months in office. We are supposed to just accept at face value the supposition that they would have, in early 2001, favored increasing by many billions of dollars the budgets of the CIA, FBI and other intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the radical overhaul of the previous administration's terrorism related policies, based solely upon the assumption that Al-Qaeda was, at some point in the future, going to commit terrorist acts in this country.

Is there anyone who can envision such a scenario actually taking place, or is it far more likely that the liberal minority in this country would have reacted with horror and vicious reproach toward the president at

the mere suggestion that he would undertake such initiatives? I believe the answer to that question is as obvious as the previous ones, yet now these Monday morning quarterbacks want everyone to believe that Bush should have adopted those very policies upon taking office in January of 2001. This is such an obviously absurd assertion that remarking on it further would be comical. The fact is that the leftists of America are

engaged in a well coordinated effort to blame George W. Bush and his administration for what is undoubtedly their own failures, and their shameless politicizing of the worst terrorist attacks in history, as well as the current conflict in Iraq, exposes them for the ultra-partisan political hacks that they are.

It's one thing to make note of the fact that previous administrations left the current one with little to work with in the way of a viable counter-terrorism infrastructure, but it's another thing entirely to say that any administration, either past or present should be held accountable for the acts of psychotic mass murderers. Liberals seem to have little or no respect for the fact that we are at war. The last thing we need is a pack of finger-pointing hypocrites running around telling us and our combat troops overseas that our Commander in Chief is responsible for the deaths of thousands of American citizens, most especially when they know it isn't the truth. TERRORISTS are responsible for committing acts of terror, not our government, even when it is being

run by leftist ideologues with no common sense and no idea as to what should be done to prevent such unprovoked attacks! Instead of attempting to lambaste and humiliate the people currently in charge, these people should be trying to unify the nation and encourage their loyal followers to do the same.

They should be willing to admit their own mistakes and forgo the petty, divisive rhetoric they so readily embrace during this most critical time in our history for the sake of their country. Instead they place their own political aspirations ahead of the welfare of their fellow Americans, the mission of the men and women serving in our armed forces and the cause of liberty around the world. They have shamed themselves in the most profound of ways, and no apologies they could offer at this point can repair the damage they have done to this nation. I hold them in contempt for their blatant disregard for all that is honorable and decent, and encourage every patriotic American to speak out against them. Their motives are as transparent as their behavior is despicable, and no person of good conscience can argue in defense of their actions.