*UPDATE* - You know the legitimate outrage over the Bush assassination movie? Well the libs are trying to say that there was a Clinton assassination in "The Path to 9/11". Where you ask? Apparently they think terrorists angrily shooting at Clinton's image on a screen is equivalent to a movie based on the assassination of Bush, and a post-Bush world. Kos, not surprisingly, linked me to that ridiculousness. I would say they can't be serious, but sadly this is all too predictable from these loons

I haven't had an opportunity to post on the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11", and it would have been pointless trying to keep up with the coverage of the folks at HotAir. Even as we speak, AllahPundit has posted a reminder, but also notes that the documentary 9/11 will be airring on CBS. Not sure which one to watch live yet. After my comments I'll post links to all of HotAir's extensive coverage leading up to tonight's program.

By now you certainly know that the Clinton administration and Democrats in general have been freaking out over the ABC miniseries. They're upset about fictionalized scenes that essentially show Sandy Berger and the Clinton administration in general, dropping the ball on killing and/or capturing Bin Laden. The movie is labeled a docudrama, because it isn't supposed to be a documentary, which is why it has actors telling a story. I do understand their outrage, because the original scenes in question do make them look pretty bad.

It seems that the scenes that they're mad about are fictional events happening in Washington, centered around REAL events, like not giving the go to the CIA to kill Bin Laden when they had the chance, and then tipping off the Pakistanis who tipped off UBL before another strike. The problem is, these real "on the ground" events actually happened, but the Dems are ripped about the fictionalized Washington scenes built around them. So while I hate to borrow a term created during Rathergate, this is "fake but accurate". Only in this case, "fake but accurate" is true.

Before I link you to the scenes, that it seems have now been cut, I'd like to say that I actually kind of agree with the Dems, that this film should be pulled... but for different reasons. I think if we really want to examine Clinton's Bin Laden fighting record, ABC should start with a point by point analysis of the contents of the book Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror.

After we become fully aware of the facts and all claims made in that book, we should take a look at a speech given by Clinton in 2002 when he unwittingly admitted that he dropped the ball:

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan," Clinton told the Long Island Association on Feb. 15, 2002.

"He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

"They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

Seems pretty straight forward, right? Sudan offered him to Billy Jeff, but he turned them down. Dems will argue all day long that he didn't say "they offered Bin Laden", but that's just word games. Read where Clinton says "so I did not bring him..." He's saying that he had the opportunity to, or else he wouldn't have given a reason why he didn't. And then he says "I pleaded with the Saudis to take him...", again saying that it was his decision to do with UBL what he wished. There is nothing ambiguous about this and no way to spin it. If you have read this comment, and think you have another view about it, you're lying because there's no wiggle room.

Now if I wanted to get in to the Able Danger angle, we could be here all night. I almost hesitate to link to Wikipedia with that because I haven't read that entire article, but it's too broad of a topic to use anything else. If you aren't familiar, here's the gist - Jamie Gorelick, a senior justice department official under Clinton, may not have erected the wall between law enforcement and intelligence, but she made it the wall it became. She laid each and every brick making the wall much higher than it had ever been. This wall kept a secret intelligence group called Able Danger from passing along information about the 9/11 hijackers to the proper authorities. Specifically they identified ringleader Mohamed Atta, and 3 others.

Able Danger repeatedly tried to get this info to the proper authorities, but the Clinton justice Dept. wasn't having any of it. Then for some unknown reason, no one saw it a conflict of interest to make Gorelick commissioner of the 9/11 commission, and no one seems that curious about what documents Sandy Berger shoved down his pants and socks and later destroyed. For some reason even after he was criminally charged and convicted after denying then admitting his crime, everyone seems to have accepted the "oh, they were just copies" excuse. Why hide them in your pants and socks then sir?

It wouldn't take you more than 10 minutes of Googling to realiz that the real story is much more damning for Bill Clinton and his adminstration than anything ABC was going to show in this docudrama.

That all said, it seems like ABC resisted efforts to force them to pull the program, however it sounds like they've removed the scenes that got the left all in a tizzy. I sort of actually agree with pulling those scenes if they weren't exactly what happened, but I bet it will hurt the story a bit, and I think that there is no excuse for not including the real truth, which would actually be much worse for Slick Willy. If you would like to see the scenes that have been removed (according to British TV viewers who's seen the first half of the program (see HotAir)), you can see them, in 6 parts, at Save the Soldliers and Pointvlog. Again, these seem to just be dramatized scenes of things along the lines of what we can assume must have been going on behind closed doors. Fake but accurate.

(mid-post break PROGRAM ABOUT TO START)

(Program ended)

Okay, I have to say that the movie is really well put together. One of the few things I've seen in recent time that is captivating (for lack of a better word). I missed a good chunk when my brother showed up to check out the bite I got from my neighbor's dog today, but I DVRed it so I can see what I missed later. I do know, from reading the HotAir thread, that part of what I missed was the section where ABC caved in and removed scenes to appease the Clinstapo. AllahPundit has posted two videos as well, one of the unedited (not shown) and one of the edited (shown) versions of that part of the film, whicih I'll be checking out shortly.

Now, much of that was all my rant and take on this whole situation, but as I said others, especially HotAir have blogged the hell out of this thing over the past week. From reporting the insane calls for editing and pulling of the movie, to Thug Democrats threatening to pull ABC's broadcast license, etc. etc. It would be pointless for me to try to catch up on blogging all of this information, but I think it's important to digest all of what went on this week and consider what it may all mean.

I honestly think that the Lewinsky issue being brought back to the forefront, as a possible Clinton distraction, is a huge part of what we saw go down this week. Yes he doesn't want the world to see him asleep at the wheel on UBL, but I think the entire Clinton organization is afraid of the political implications of seeing him asleep with the humidor (yeah, I went there).

Anyway, without further ado, here's the HotAir coverage. Read/watch all of it:

Report: ABC agrees to edit “Path to 9/11" after phone call from Clinton

Thugs for life: Dems threaten ABC’s broadcast license over “Path to 9/11" Update: Stolen Honor redux?

Miserable failure: More Clinton counterterror catastrophes

Video flashback: U.S. drone had Osama onscreen — in 2000

ABC cancels “Path to 9/11" web ads? Update: Lefties squat on “Path” domain name

Video: Clinton takes strong, principled stand against lying

Meltdown: Dean, Berger, Albright, lefty historians demand “Path” be edited cancelled (Update: Clinton’s lawyers, too)

Video: Red State obtains preview copy of “Path to 9/11"

For now I'm on the edge of my seat for the conclusion tomorrow. So far it's been very interesting and well done.

FEATURED BOOK