Hindsight is 20/20, as a clich, I think, is understated.

Hindsight is more like 20/10. Hindsight is like X-ray vision.

And now in the blinding light of hindsight we have Congressmen ready to blame the President for the attack on the World Trade Centers.

I was listening to Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., on CNN.

He actually said W should be "held responsible" for 9/11 because he knew about the hijackers and did nothing.

Democrat leaders Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt were calling for hearings and pretty much pointing the finger at W.

Indiana's own Evan Bayh was on, too. At least he had the sense to say we shouldn't be playing the blame game, that we should only be concerned about studying past experiences to prevent future problems.

The New York Post headline?

"He Knew!" That's referring to W, of course.

All of this is abject nonsense, except maybe the part about learning from the past.

The furor erupted earlier this week when there were reports of a CIA briefing in August during which W was told of the possibility that Osama bin Laden might be planning hijackings. The "traditional" sort of hijacking where terrorists either blow up planes full of people or use passengers as bargaining chips to free imprisoned extremists.

No specifics. No time. No place. No method.

I think the CNN reporter characterized the warning best. He called it a "generalized warning regarding possible hijackings."

Of course, anybody who read a newspaper since 1996 knew that bin Laden had been attacking U.S. interests overseas and threatening U.S. interest worldwide.

And suggesting that terrorists might hijack a plane is kind of like suggesting that Kobe Bryant might play basketball.

Hijacking is well-documented tool of the terror trade.

Nonetheless, after the briefing, the relevant agencies - Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Bureau - were notified. Those agencies notified the airlines.

Critics say W should have done more. That he could have done something to avert 9/11.

I guess my question to the critics would be, what should he have done?

There are 20,000 domestic airline flights every day in the U.S. Should he have shut them down? Should he have ordered the kind of airport security that was borne out of the 9/11 tragedy? Should he have put the country on high alert?

Remember the alerts after 9/11? Every other time there was a threat, the country was put on alert. Some of the loudest critics of W's alleged failure to act in August are the same ones who ridiculed the government for putting us on alert all the time after 9/11.

And remember that this briefing happened a month before 9/11.

It was a different world then. No one thought hijackers would crash planes into buildings.

How could anyone possibly have predicted it?

Anytime a tragic event occurs, you can look back and find lots of little things that might have tipped you off, given the advantage of hindsight.

People look back and say, "Wow, I should have seen that coming."

Certainly our government can learn from this series of events. There is no doubt the CIA and FBI could do a better job sharing information.

There may have been warning signs that were missed or misinterpreted by those agencies.

But to say that W knew or should have known in advance about the attacks on the World Trade Center is nothing more than partisan tripe.

*****

And another thing.

Remember when the government was being careful about spending?

That's overstated.

Remember when the government wasn't spending more than it was taking in?

That was the 1990s.

Remember the 1990s. Remember congressional leaders telling us about balanced budgets, eliminating deficits, leaner and more efficient government?

Well it's a new millennium and all that stuff is out the window.

There's one word that reigns pre-eminent in Washington, D.C., these days.

The word is "spend."

Federal spending - not including Medicare and Social Security which cost more than a trillion dollars - will increase by at least 11 percent his year, to about $740 billion.

Contrast that with 20 years ago when total federal spending - including everything - was around $750 billion.

But that's OK.

Our Senators and Representatives are not deterred from burning through tax dollars like there's no tomorrow.

House Republicans are proposing a 10-year, $350 billion prescription drug plan. (Hey, it's an election year. How better to get votes than slather a vast constituency with an expensive government entitlement?)

If that's not bad enough, Senate Democrats have a prescription drug plan of their own. Theirs will cost up to $500 billion.

Congress just passed a farm bill. Instead of lowering federal subsidies and moving farming toward a more market-oriented approach, our fearless lawmakers gave the nod to $180 billion over 10 years. And $70-plus billion of that is new spending.

Seems like it's party time in Congress.

Spend it like you have it.

If Congress was an average American family, it would have two 2002 SUVs, a 30-year mortgage on a new house with no money down, no savings, four maxxed out credit cards and three kids in college.

Dad would get laid off from his job and the whole family would be happily planning to put a two-week trip to Maui on their brand new Platinum Visa.

Congress seems to think that there is no bottom to the revenue well.

Sad thing is, they're right. All they have to do is collect more money from us.

I am convinced they will never understand one simple premise. Budget problems aren't caused by too little revenue. They're caused by too much spending. [[In-content Ad]]