Here is the headline of the Post Chronicle article, dated 14 December 2006: “Was Bill Clinton Too Busy With Diana To Bother With Osama?”

Had I been paying attention over the past few days, I would have noticed what was happening in the press.

First, on December 10, the Guardian (UK) article appeared, entitled, “US bugged Diana’s phone on night of death crash.” The article says nothing about Clinton or bin Laden.

Next, on December 11, William Arkin writes an opinion in the Washington Post about how the press is wasting time talking on Princess Diana having her phone tapped by the US.

He writes:

“My question is why, even with permission, would U.S. intelligence waste its time to monitor a private citizen? My guess is that the the Observer didn’t ask this question because the assumption in our society is that everyone’s phone calls are indeed being listened to.”

This makes the connection to the Bush administration wiretapping scandal.

Then, the Evening Standard (UK) adds that “[t]he US secret service was monitoring Diana’s friendship with the controversial financier Mr Forstmann for some weeks.” Preceding this is a rumor-based omen: “Authoritative leaks say the extraordinary revelations will be published this week by Lord Stevens and is bound to raise fresh questions about conspiracy theories.” (Emphasis mine)

That was the setup. First, talk about conspiracy theories. Then, say that the reason for the bugging had something to do with a rich financier. All of this based on “authoritative leaks” (rumors) about what has yet to be published.

Byron York, writing on December 12 in the National Review Online, adds that Forstmann, the rich financier, “was quite active in Republican politics.” See, he was a Republican. Why is that important? You can guess the answer by starting the next paragraph: “If the Clinton administration did engage in surveillance…” See, Clinton spied on Americans. So, it’s okay.

York adds to the cloak-and-dagger suspense:

“The National Security Agency released a statement last night saying, ‘NSA did not target Princess Diana’s communications.’ A spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency told the Washington Post that any suggestion the CIA wiretapped Diana was ‘rubbish.’ Neither statement seems to be a definitive denial.” (Emphasis mine)

Here is the statement from the NSA, as reported in the Washington Post:

“’The 39 NSA-originated and NSA-controlled documents referenced in a response to a Freedom of Information Act request in 1998 only contained references to the Princess, and she was never the communicant,’ the statement said. ‘NSA did not target Princess Diana’s communications.’” (Emphasis mine)

Basically, the NSA admitted to having documents that referenced the Princess, and they explicitly stated that the documents “originated” at the NSA. Due to the Guardian’s use of the term “secret service,” (lower case, so not the Secret Service but a secret service) many have speculated that the origin of the documents could have been the Secret Service, or some other US intelligence agency. In fact, they were from the NSA, exactly as they claimed.

Was the NSA spying on Diana? No. Not according to the NSA. Why would they do that? They probably wouldn’t, just like they said.

The New York Daily News reports:

“A source close to Forstmann told the Daily News yesterday that Diana may have been overheard while traveling with Forstmann on his private plane, which Forstmann believed was bugged by the feds to listen in on his rich and powerful friends.” (Emphasis mine)

See? More speculation and rumor.

The website of KXMC, from Minot, North Dakota, adds still more speculation:

“…Princess Diana had been dating rich Republican mover-and-shaker Teddy Forstmann, which may have been the reason the bug was authorized by the Clinton administration.”

Later, the author asks, “Was it targeting the well-connected Ted Forstmann who was a Clinton administration opponent and potential candidate against Hillary for the Senate in New York?”

So, to recap, based on rumor and fabricated BS, the Clinton administration was pulling a Nixon and spying on a prospective Republican opponent of Hillary Clinton. This, despite the fact that the NSA denied spying on Diana. Does any of this show that Clinton had anything to do with this? No. Does evidence exist that this was being done without a warrant? No.

Does it matter? No. If Bush committed a crime, it is still a crime, and he should be punished. If Clinton committed it first–an allegation of which no evidence exists–it would still be a crime. We all know what happened when Clinton lied under oath: He was impeached. Is that what this is about?

Remember the headline I discussed in the beginning of this post? Here it is again: “Was Bill Clinton Too Busy With Diana To Bother With Osama?” That is one hell of an accusation. They even added the Path to 9/11, internet-based fabrication to jazz it up.

Why do they do this? I have only one answer: Every effort of the right-wing media is directed at distracting the American public from any real issue that faces us. Iraq? Look at Clinton murdering Princess Diana!!! Global warming? Scientists are being muzzled by left-wing lunatic bloggers!!! Government corruption? White girl missing!!! Clinton must have gotten her!!! Ahhhhh!!!

Update: Glenn Greenwald has some insight on this.

Also, David Frum admitted he was wrong! I have seen everything.