Democrats are awfully tetchy these days. They’re mad that their presidential candidate is a pompous whiner; they’re mad that people from places like Kansas still like President Bush; they’re mad because the hardcore of their Party consists entirely of abortionists, ecofascists, narrow-minded union members, and know-it-all “intellectuals”; and, most of all, they’re mad because Condoleezza Rice is testifying publicly before the 9/11 Commission.

To unearth the strategy they will use to discredit Dr. Rice one needs to look no further than the pages of Sunday’s New York Times. The game plan appears to be: lie about Bush. (In addition to tetchy, Democrats are totally unimaginative.)

The official Democratic Action Plan for defeating this White House is to systematically lie about the events leading up to September 11. This is evidenced by The Times’ lead Sunday headline, “Uneven Response Seen On Terror In Summer of ’01.”

In late June 2001 the State Department directed all U.S. embassies and diplomatic posts to heighten security. Two days later, American intelligence agencies warned of a “high probability” of attacks against America by al-Qaeda. The next day, the State Department told Taliban officials in Pakistan that the Taliban would be held responsible if al-Qaeda attacked us.

On July 2 the FBI warned federal, state, and local law enforcement officials of the threats. This continued on July 5, when more alerts were issued. Approximately one month later, President Bush was briefed on bin Laden’s “methods and operations” since 1997. He was told that al-Qaeda sought to hijack airliners.

On September 4, there was a cabinet-level meeting on al-Qaeda, and on September 10—one day before the attacks—the Administration approved a three-to-five-year plan to eliminate al-Qaeda.

Based on this information, most rational Americans would conclude that Bush was making great efforts to thwart terrorism. But not The Times! They said that Bush’s “response [to the threat] was often scattered and inconsistent….”

Similarly, Maureen Dowd wrote that the White House is “putting a retroactive glow on their terrorism efforts, asserting that their plan was more muscular and ‘comprehensive’ than Mr. Clinton’s.”

Just by the nature of the word “plan” Bush’s would have been “more comprehensive,” because President Clinton didn’t have one. Bush prefers the War on Terror to the War on Aspirin.

Another Times reporter took a different approach. But, unlike the others, this one was clever. She’s trying to destroy the Administration by calling Bush stupid.

Dr. Rice, she said, is “the president’s gatekeeper on counterterrorism.” She is “crisp” and “hyper-prepared,” with a “scowling face.” (What is it with Democrats interpreting this woman’s countenance?) Most significantly, Rice is the woman “who could explain the world to [Bush] in cogent bites.”

It goes like this: Bush is dumb, Condi’s not, so “Bush’s Credibility Now Rests on Her Shoulders.”

This tactic is much like the one used by those detestable pre-teens who heckle you just before you make a speech in front of your class. Don’t mess up… no pressure…Don’t mess up…

The little monsters say these things because they care more about humiliating you than about listening to a thoughtful presentation. It’s the same with these revulsive Democrats. They don’t care about substance. They care about making an idiot out of the black gal—just in case she happens to be the VP candidate come November.

If we have to have an investigation into the attacks, it seems like substantive argument would be the best way to go about it. But Democrats are much too edgy for that. They want the White House and they want it now. Silly subjects like “foreign policy” are off the table. Only name-calling, back-stabbing, and race-baiting are acceptable.

Since Dr. Rice became National Security Advisor, she has been relatively immune from disparagement. A lot of liberals hated her, but they hate all Republicans. Now, however, as Democrat patience is wearing thin, she’s become the left’s primary target. Luckily for America, she can avert the bullets far better than they can shoot them.