I caught a little bit of ABC's "The Path To 9/11" last night, and now I understand why former members of Clinton administration and other Democrats are so pissed about it.
It generally portrays CIA Director George Tenet and National Secrurity Advisor Sandy Berger as hapless bureaucrats, who when faced with the opportunity to capture Osama Bin Laden were more concerned with who'd get the blame if things went wrong than they were with doing what was right.
I won't speak to the accuracy of the miniseries -- it is, after all, network television and a work of fiction, so I wasn't expecting much in the first place.
But it does remind us all of some central facts about 9/11 -- specifically, that the plot to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon wasn't born within President Bush's first eight months in office.
In fact, the threat of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was well known throughout the Clinton presidency, and his government fumbled multiple opportunities to intercept and stop them.
It's an issue that I believe will shadow the Democrats throughout the fall election season, and may put a serious dent in their plans to take control of the House of Representatives.
Many Democratic candidates are critical of the current administration's record in the war on terror, notably the invasion of Iraq.
But when pressed for what they would do, they default one of three answers:
-- Retreat from Iraq, which no serious person thinks is workable;
-- Stay the course, which is essentially the current administration's policy;
While the Democrats seek to tap the "deep anger" they allege many Americans feel about the war, they face one major problem -- virtually no one thinks they can do a better job than the Republicans in keeping us safe.