She’s not the only one calling him that! And I’m not sure this is the best defense:

“What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years,” Rice added.

Is she trying to say that they didn’t do anything? Being “as aggressive” as Clinton isn’t saying too much.
Also, she stated that Clinton lied about leaving an anti-terror strategy:

The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton claim that he “left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy” for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.
“We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda,” Rice responded during the hourlong session.

And she defended the administration against the charge that they demoted Richard Clark:

She also said Clinton claims that Richard Clarke – the White House anti-terror guru hyped by Clinton as the country’s “best guy” – had been demoted by Bush were bogus.
“Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened. And he left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security, some several months later,” she said.
Rice noted that the world changed after 9/11.
“I would make the divide Sept. 11, 2001, when the attack on this country mobilized us to fight the war on terror in a very different way,” Rice said.

Read the rest of the article here. I’m glad that the administration is defending themselves against Clintons lies. They need to make sure he doesn’t rewrite history and make himself out as this great anti-terrorism president. Clinton is responsible for 9-11, he could have killed bin Laden and didn’t. Period, end of discussion. He, himself has said so.