1) Why have the Democrats made such a fuss about this film?

First, let’s concede the obvious – they have a point. There are “conflations” and “dramatizations” that cast their previous administration in a negative light. If I were Sandy Berger, I wouldn’t be thrilled about my depiction. Then again, if I were Sandy Berger, I’d probably keep a low profile during this entire controversy, figuring the less snooping done into my record on terrorism, the better.

But conservatives should be upset about these inaccuracies, also.

2) Why’s that?

Because Truth is what any artist should be after, be he a historian or a novelist or the auteur of a televised docudrama. Actual events would have served perfectly well in conveying Truth. For instance, if the film included a scene where Bill Clinton said to his staffers, “You know it would scare the shit out of Al Qaeda if suddenly a bunch of black ninjas rappelled out of helicopters into the middle of the camp,” and the camera then surveyed the agape stares of Clinton’s acolytes, that too would have communicated Truth. And it would have reflected an actual event.

3) Do you think Clinton meant Ninjas dressed in black or a bunch of black guys who happened to be Ninjas?

Almost certainly the former. And I’m sure the composition of the Ninja team, like his Cabinet, would have been carefully monitored to make sure it looked like America. Before it put on its Ninja suits, of course.

4) Will the “Path to 9/11” draw huge ratings?

I doubt it. I think the sad fact is America doesn’t really have much of an appetite to remember that day. “United 93” was a great, inspiring movie and didn’t do much box office. Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center” is supposed to be terrific and it too hasn’t set any records. Generally speaking, people like entertainment that will make them feel good.

5) But what about 1983’s “The Day After”? That was an event!

Yes, it was. And it drew the ratings it did mostly because it was an event and its subject matter was something that the country had been obsessing over for several years. While our society should be obsessing over terrorism, it isn’t. I predict more people will be watching Sunday Night Football on NBC than “The Path to 9/11.”

6) What about this Democratic stunt making a veiled threat to look into Disney’s broadcast license if ABC shows the film?

Shameless. Pathetic. And hilarious. Really, do you think the Democrats in Congress want to have hearings to determine just what the Clinton administration did and did not do to fight terror? How many news cycles would that take? The Senate Democrats go through multiple contortions very day pretending that they’re just as angry as their blogging base. This letter represents just another despicable day at the office for them. More’s the pity.

7) Why are the bloggers in such a lather about this movie?

You got me with that one. It’s not because they love Clinton, and lord knows they didn’t show the same appetite for accuracy where the Rathergate documents were concerned.

Their passion is especially odd since lately, the Daily Kos and the other lefty blogs have shown good message discipline and known when to starve a story of oxygen. For instance, when Paul Hackett called the son of a Holocaust survivor an Unterfuhrer, the Daily Kos didn’t make a peep to defend its heartthrob. But today, the Daily Kos front page is enflamed with rage at the Mouse. If the Democrats could have kept quiet, this movie would have come and gone with all the fanfare of a typical weekly movie. But having become a political football, a lot more people are talking about it than otherwise would be the case. And therefore, a lot more people are talking about the Democrats’ record on terrorism, which isn’t a very good thing for the Democrats.

8) Will you be watching the movie?

No. No disrespect to the filmmakers, but knowing that there are historical inaccuracies, I’d be distracted throughout. I’ve done a lot of reading and studying about 9/11; I know the story well. I don’t need a history lesson on it, especially one that dramatizes and conflates events. I’ll be watching the season debut of “The Wire,” one of the best shows in the history of the medium.

9) But aren’t you curious about “The Path to 9/11”?

Yeah, but on a different level than most people are. For instance, I understand that FBI agent John O’Neill (who died in the World Trade Center shortly after moving to the private sector) is the hero of the piece. But John O’Neill was dead set against assassinating bin Laden. He insisted that he was a lawman, not a killer. The biggest proponent of making bin Laden dead was former CIA Alec Station chief and current right wing bete noire Michael Scheuer. Scheuer and O’Neill hated each other and worked together very poorly (to put it mildly). Most accounts suggest that Scheuer was a territorial jerk, and O’Neill was constantly harried because his personal life was a train wreck. I would be interested in seeing how the film handled those things, and a bunch of other similar less-than-earth-shattering issues. But I’m not interested enough to devote five hours of my life to finding out the answer.

Besides, I’ve got an ambitious agenda for the weekend. I’m resuming teaching on Saturday morning after a three year absence, I have a lot of 9/11 writing to do, I want to read “The Brothers Karamazov” (no joke – and I never read fiction) and I’ll somehow have to squeeze in at least 36 holes of golf.

10) "The Brothers Karamazov"? You must be kidding!

No. It’s been 20 years since I read it, and I hardly remember a thing. I’m pretty sure it took place in Russia and centered on a bunch of guys named Karamazov, but I might be mistaken. And I figure if I’m actually going to read a work of fiction, might as well read a great one.

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