Without skipping a beat, they'll blame Republicans & figure out how to angle everything in a way for them to regain the reins of power.
We didn't -- but I think I am getting it vis-a-vis the desperate campaign to "prove" that George W. Bush either directed the 9/11 attacks or knew of the attacks and let them happen. (See below)
Veteran journalist Peter Lance is no Bush fan. He's blamed Bush I for the first WTC attack -- Clinton had just become president, you see.
I've heard several interviews with Mr. Lance over the past few years. IMO he wanted to "prove" 9/11 was entirely Bush II's fault. But alas.. he's tethered to events which occurred in the 1990s. (He appears to be a honest man despite his feeeeeeeeeeeelings.) But he admitted in an interview tonight that he is still looking for the Bush connection.
In the mean time he names names, cover-up events, and why the cover up -- including Patrick Fitzgerald (the man trying desperately to send the Bush White House to prison). Proof (IMO) that Patrick Fitzgerald, et al. are responsible for ignoring the path to those planning the 9/11 attacks and more.
http://www.peterlance.com/
Why the desperate campaign to "prove" that George did it? Because "they" know the facts being uncovered by Mr. Lance, et al. No, the Clinton White House was not directly involved in the need to ignore the path that led directly to the 9/11 attacks -- but "they" know it all occurred on their watch.
They have to drum "Bush did it" into our heads -- it's tantamount to the years-long 24/7 cacophony of "liar/Bush, liar/Bush. . . ." smokescreen to deflect and (hopefully) forget the congenital liar, psycho BJ.