An Offer of Perspective

In early 2004 as the 9/11 Commission convened, we were subjected to weeks of official and quite unofficial Bush-bashing. It began with Richard Clarke's 60 Minutes interview and continued on for months, as everyone warmed to the idea of kicking in the President's head (figuratively speaking of course) over what the Administration knew and didn't do in preventing the events of 9/11.

I said at the time, and still contend today, that there were many criticisms worth making of the Administration for things it missed and/or chose not to do about information it had that hinted at the events of that day. But any rational person must also admit that with only 8 months in office, that the Administration had not yet put it's own stamp on American counter-terrorism policy. In otherwords, to be fair one had to make judgments about US policies and decisions vis-a-vis terrorism and terrorists that pre-dated George W. Bush.

Last week, word began getting out that ABC's mini-series The Path to 9/11 was a balanced look at the years leading to that infamous day:

...is generating huge and favorable buzz among industry insiders and center-right viewers who have seen the two-part, four hour miniseries.

Initial reviews posted at conservative sites such as Human Events and FrontPage has stirred interest on the right about finally seeing a more even-handed approach to 9/11 criticisms. Predictably the thought that anyone might have something bad to say about Bill Clinton has caused a stir on the left.

Some examples:

ABC docudrama will blame Clinton and Dems for 9/11: We know this is simply bull****. Yet ABC is airing this propaganda and will undoubtedly promote the hell out of it in the next two weeks.

Writer of ABC's 9/11 "Docudrama" Is Avowed Conservative Activist: The problem isn't that Nowrasteh is conservative. The problem is that Nowrasteh and ABC are representing "The Path to 9/11″ as an unbiased historical drama. Promos for the movie say it is "based on the 9/11 Commission Report." Nowrasteh claims he "wanted to match the just-the-facts tone of the report," and describes the project as "an objective telling of the events of 9/11."

Here's some of the objectivity you can expect: Nowrasteh says the film shows how Clinton had "frequent opportunities" in the 90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks " but lacked the will to do so." He has referenced Clinton's "lack of response" to Al Qaeda "and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests."

And the "official" Democratic response: ABC Should not air "The Path to 9/11" which summarizes things with this concise and even-handed response:

ABC Should not air "The Path to 9/11." The TV MiniSeries was produced by a right-wing nut who blames the Clinton administration for 9/11, when clearly the Bush administration is to blame. ABC should be ashamed of itself for pandering to the right wing nuts.

On Friday, Andy McCarthy wondered aloud if ABC would cave to pressure exerted from FOB's aimed at killing the two-part broadcast:

I'm hearing all kinds of disturbing, though predictable, stories about a Clintonista offensive against "The Path to 9/11," an ABC documentary written and produced by Cyrus Nowrasteh ("Into the West"), and directed by David Cunningham ("To End All Wars"). I haven't seen it yet (although I hope to this weekend), but it is already drawing rave reviews from people who have (the piece is reviewed at FrontPage, here).

Apparently, the documentary recounts the bureaucratic bungling and lack of action against al Qaeda that was pervasive prior to the September 11 atrocities. It is by no means, I understand, pro-Bush. It is, instead, an effort to present history accurately. This evidently has many former Clinton officials and apologists in their default kill-the-messenger mode. Great pressure is being brought to bear on ABC and Disney to reopen the editorial process at this late stage (the documentary is supposed to air on September 10-11) so that the years 1993-2001 may remain forever airbrushed.

Will they succeed? This bears watching.

McCarthy's NRO colleague Stephen Spruiell noted later in the day that, so far at least, there is no intention of backing off on the subject: I followed up on Andy's Corner post this morning by calling ABC, and was told by a spokeswoman that the "Path to 9/11" miniseries is "locked and ready to air," and that she hadn't heard anything about a pressure campaign to reopen the editing process. She said that she would check around and get back to me, but that a lot of people have already left for vacation. I'll post updates if they come, but it looks like "Path" is safe from Clinton mischief for now.

People defend their political "heroes" and people holding their political views as a matter of second-nature, almost a knee-jerk reaction if you will. That is true on the left and the right. Why though, can't we move beyond it and be more willing to at least hear the other side's interpretation even if we ultimately disagree with their conclusions?

Of the defenses made for Clinton's handling of terrorism in the 90's and simultaneous efforts at placing blame solely on the Bush Administration, I think the best response is found at Patterico:

"The Path to 9/11″ absolutely slams Bush in a number of ways:

1. It depicts Condi Rice ignoring Richard Clarke's advice about Al-Queda and undercutting his authority within the White House.

2. It depicts the August 6th "Presidential Daily Briefing" wherein Rice is explicitly warned before 9/11 that Bin Laden intends to hijack American airplanes.

3. It makes Richard Clarke look like a tragic hero (even though everyone knows that he later went on to become one of Bush's biggest criticsepilogue

4. It contains an epliogue that cites 9/11 Commission members giving the current government a failing grade in implementing their recommendations.

As I thought 2-1/2 years ago and said then, I still say now: Neither Clinton nor Bush are completely and solely at fault for the events of omissionh are guilty of sins of ommission in the matter.

To blatantly lambaste one but not the other is shameless, as well as shameful political demagougery.