Some things never change, even when they really ought to.

On Friday Sean Hannity used a second-hand account from a former Bin Laden associate as an excuse to attack the Clinton administration.

Hannity suggested that Clinton's handling of terrorism emboldened Al Qaeda to step up their game prior to the 9/11 attacks.

The shocking claim comes a week after Hannity cancelled a trip to Ohio due to his perceived closeness to the Tea Party movement and their decision to charge for tickets to the event.

To level his soft on terror charge at Clinton, Hannity and his guest Oliver North overlooked the spike in chatter in the nine months before the attacks, during which the Bush administration could have adopted a different strategy.

Let's not forget that 'Bin Laden Determined To Attack The USA' was the title of the document that languished, inexplicably, on George W. Bush's desk in the month before the attack.

And by the way Sean, what makes you or Oliver North authorities on Al Qaeda anyway? Neither of you have any counter-terrorism expertise or experience. You're drawing some pretty large conclusions from some dubious sources.

But blaming Clinton for 9/11 is an old Hannity ploy. In fact, Clinton said he did not strike back after the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in October 2000 because he did not have conclusive evidence that Al Qaeda was responsible.

His best advisors agreed, saying that a military action might inflame the Islamic world and actually increase support for the Taliban.

And when the Bush administration came to power just a few months later, Condoleezza Rice reported to the 9/11 Commission that it was decided that 'Tit-for-tat responses were likely to be counterproductive.'

Those are the facts Sean. If you had actually chosen to report them, then your audience would have been able to decide for themselves.