The Bush White House is in full-throttle spin mode, attempting to repair the President’s badly tarnished legacy. This afternoon, Fox News lent a hand in the effort to revise history. In an interview with White House press spokesman Tony Fratto, Fox anchor Jon Scott claimed that, prior to 9/11, “nobody was thinking” that terrorists could fly planes into buildings as an act of terrorism. Fratto agreed:

SCOTT: Back to the 9/11 attacks, which happened after all pretty early in this president’s first term, I mean nobody was thinking that there’d be terrorists flying 767s into buildings at that point. …

FRATTO: That’s true. I mean, no one could have anticipated that kind of attack — or very few people.

Watch it:

In fact, intelligence analysts had been warning for some time that terrorists could hijack planes. On December 4, 1998, for example, the Clinton administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.” The Clinton administration responded by convening its top counterterrorism experts and heightening security at airports around the nation.

On August 6, 2001, the Bush administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.” The memo warned:

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a —- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

Moreover, the Federal Aviation Administration “had indeed considered the possibility that terrorists would hijack a plane and use it as a weapon,” and in 2001 it distributed a CD-ROM presentation to airlines and airports that cited the possibility of a suicide hijacking.

In response to that threat warning, the Bush administration did nothing. The 9/11 Commission reports, “We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States.”

In the latest stop in his “legacy tour,” President Bush spoke at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania earlier today.

Choosing the War College for the one of the last legs of Bush’s victory limp is deeply ironic. As Dan Froomkin notes, “more than a month before the U.S. invaded Iraq, the War College published a prescient report — Reconstructing Iraq: Insights, Challenges, and Missions for Military Forces in a Post-Conflict Scenario — that the White House essentially ignored.”

As James Fallows wrote for the Atlantic in 2004, the report warned of ethnic and regional tensions, advised that Iraqis would quickly turn against an occupying force and set out a 135-item checklist of key tasks that might have avoided disaster.

Then, in December of 2003, the college published a scathing report saying the war in Iraq was not only distracting from the real war on terror, but that Bush was pursuing an “unrealistic” quest that might lead to wars with states posing no serious threat.

Bush nevertheless chose the War College as the site of a major speech about the war in May 2004 — a desperate and unsuccessful attempt to reverse the growing tide of public discontent over a campaign that had turned increasingly violent.

But the real purpose of siting the speech at the War College was to allow Bush one of his final opportunities to bask in the reflected glory of the United States military. Throughout his presidency, Bush has made much of his role as commander-in-chief. He has regularly used the accoutrements of soldiery to cultivate an image of himself as a “war leader.” This is pretty unseemly for someone who, when he was of age, used his family’s connections to avoid combat in a war he claims to have supported. But it’s even more so given that few, if any, American leaders in history have more poorly served America’s military than George W. Bush.

As Center for American Progress senior fellow Lawrence Korb said in congressional testimony in July 2007, “America’s ground forces are stretched to their breaking point.”

Not since the aftermath of the Vietnam War has the U.S. Army been so depleted…The Army is severely overstretched and its overall readiness has significantly declined. As Gen. Colin Powell noted last December [2006] well before the surge, the active Army is about broken, and as Gen. Barry McCaffrey pointed out when we testified together before the Senate Armed Services Committee in April [2007], “the ground combat capability of the U.S. armed forces is shot.” The Marine Corps is suffering from the same strains as the Army, and the situation for the Army National Guard is even worse.

A March 2008 survey of military officers conducted by Foreign Policy and the Center for a New American Security found that “the U.S. military is ‘severely strained‘ by two large-scale occupations in the Middle East, other troop deployments, and problems recruiting.”

“They see a force stretched dangerously thin and a country ill-prepared for the next fight,” said the report, ‘The U.S. Military Index,’ which polled 3,400 current and former high-level military officers.

Sixty percent of the officers surveyed said that the military is weaker now than it was five years ago, often citing the number of troops deployed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush is of course right to praise the service of America’s fighting forces. But it’s also important to recognize that, in exchange for volunteering to put their lives on the line, the men and women of our military enter into a bargain with the American people. They sign up based upon the understanding that they and their families will be taken care of, and that their sacrifice will not be thrown away in unnecessary wars and grinding occupations to implement unrealistic schemes sold with dishonest arguments. George W. Bush has violated this bargain. That is a part of his legacy that he cannot escape, no matter how many flags he stands before.

During a press conference yesterday in New York, a reporter asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to “look philosophically” at the state of diplomacy after eight years of the Bush administration and to think of “lessons we can draw out.” Rice then took the opportunity to polish up her boss’s record with the United Nations:

RICE: I think that the United States, under President Bush, has actually used the mechanisms and the councils of the United Nations more than they’ve been used maybe ever, whether it is insisting that Security Council resolutions that have been passed be respected, [or] whether it is seeking to deal with human rights and tyranny cases like Zimbabwe or Burma.

Indeed, the Bush White House has been spending a lot of time lately trying to rewrite the history of the last eight years, mainly due to the fact that President Bush’s failed policies have made him one of the most unpopular outgoing U.S. presidents in modern history.

But Rice has been playing along as well and this latest attempt at legacy building has no basis in reality. The Bush administration’s complete disregard of the U.N.’s will during the run-up to the Iraq war is the obvious example. The administration completely ignored the work of the U.N.’s weapons inspectors (UNMOVIC) at that time and instead attacked Iraq on false WMD pretenses before they could finish the job. Moreover, in 2004, then U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called the U.S.-led invasion illegal and “not in conformity with the U.N. charter.”

In 2004, the Bush administration also tried (and failed) to remove Mohamed El-Baradei as head of the IAEA — the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog — for being too soft on Iran.

But to top it all off, in 2005, President Bush installed U.N. hater and fervent war hawk John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the world body. Bush wanted Bolton so badly, he “resorted to the 17-month recess appointment to circumvent” opposition to Bolton in the Senate. Bolton famously said “there is no such thing as the United Nations” and if the U.N. building in New York “lost ten stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”

Bush even found space to criticize the U.N. in his final address to the general assembly, saying the organization “only pass[es] resolutions decrying terrorist attacks after they occur” instead of doing something to prevent them “in the first place.”

In 2006, Annan’s deputy, Mark Malloch Brown noted that “[i]n recent years the enormously divisive issue of Iraq and the big stick of financial withholding have come to define an unhappy marriage” between the U.S. and the U.N. Indeed, new U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said he looks forward to “a new era of partnership” with Obama.