I know this may not be a popular sentiment around here, but I’m uncomfortable with the upcoming miniseries, “The Path to 9/11.” Let me explain why.

In the conservative portion of the blogosphere, the film has occasioned much joyous ballyhoo. At last, we seem to be collectively exclaiming, someone with an appropriately large soapbox is telling the true story of Bill Clinton’s neglect regarding terrorism.

For me, this has been a long standing obsession. I think my third blog-post ever relayed the story of a big Democratic donor who’s a friend of mine who got the opportunity to slumber in the Lincoln bedroom one night during the Clinton administration. At one point during the evening’s chit-chat, she asked the POTUS, “Mr. President, what keeps you up at night?” Clinton got that huckster’s faux-solemn look in his eyes that we all know too well and answered with one word: “Bio-terrorism.”

When my friend told me this story back in the 90’s, I nearly had to be physically restrained. I rudely barked, “If he’s so concerned about terrorism, why doesn’t he do anything about it except bomb an aspirin factory in the Sudan when he feels the Lewinsky noose tightening?”

THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT “The Path to 9/11” centers on one scene where CIA operatives and Northern Alliance irregulars under the leadership of the awe-inspiring Ahmed Shah Massoud have the opportunity to kill bin Laden. They phone NSA chief Sandy Berger for authorization to make the hit. Berger refuses to make the decision and in the scene actually hangs up on the operatives.

I’ve done a lot of reading and research regarding 9/11, and I have to admit that this story is new to me. The closest parallel I can think of is Tenet’s, Berger’s and Clinton’s irresolute follow-through on the Predator program which had the very real likelihood of knocking off bin Laden assuming the administration was willing to risk the death of innocents. Given the fact that Clinton was willing to take such a risk when the Lewinsky scandal reached its most fevered pitch, the fact that he wasn’t as bold without the looming specter of political calamity is damning. What’s more, the Clinton administration’s lethargic and chronically dilatory efforts to deal with bin Laden are an irrefutable part of the historical record.

The preceding leaves us with two possible explanations regarding the controversial scene. One is that the filmmakers have unearthed a previously unknown jewel that they can fully document; that Berger really did slam down the phone on a field agent looking for guidance. If that’s the case, then this entire conversation is irrelevant and you should cease reading this essay.

The other explanation is that, being a docudrama, the filmmakers included a fabricated scene (which was a composite of many real factors) to dramatize the ineptitude and fecklessness that so characterized the Clinton administration. One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to do such a thing. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.

YOU MIGHT NOTE THAT the defense of the scene offers a rationale that Dan Rather would probably be comfortable with – fake but accurate. I’m uncomfortable embracing such a rationale, and I suspect most other bloggers who have rushed to tout the film will feel the same way once they think it through.

I’m especially uncomfortable with this controversy since it’s so unnecessary. The record of the Clinton administration on terrorism is an embarrassment and a disgrace. All serious studies of the matter have reached the same conclusion.

How utterly pathetic was the Clinton administration? As a piece of anecdotal evidence, here’s a novel approach that the Commander-in-Chief bounced off his Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Hugh Shelton: “You know, it would scare the shit out of Al Qaeda if suddenly a bunch of black ninjas rappelled out of helicopters into their camp.” Clinton acknowledged making this remark in his testimony before the 9/11 Commission; oddly (and perhaps admirably), Shelton couldn’t recall his President making such a complete ass of himself.

To be fair, it’s not exactly like Bush spent the 1990’s being a Churchill-esque figure warning America about the gathering storm. And when he took office, his administration’s attitude towards terrorism was strikingly blasé (with the noteworthy exception of Donald Rumsfeld).

“The Path to 9/11” may well be a great film. It’s a compelling narrative, and all preliminary indications are that it’s told quite skillfully. But whether it works as a piece of art and whether it withstands scrutiny as a historical document are two entirely distinct matters. 

And I would argue that it is far weaker for any ahistorical embellishments that the filmmakers decided to include.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.