Path to 9/11 follow-up

I have been posting a little about the controversy that has developed over "The Path to 9/11".  (here, here, and here), now I am going to follow-up.

I watched most of "The Path to 9/11" last night, but honestly at about 10:15 pm.  Overall I think the story is being told pretty well.  I don't think the cuts ABC made were outrageous (at least the ones I saw)  I also don't think that the show was extraordinarily tough on the Clinton administration.  That's my opinion, I am pretty much alone I think. 

On the right there is still outrage that ABC "gave in". 

On the left the knives are out:

Tim Roemer, "We had a truthful report, it's just too bad they had to deviate from it."

Gary Hart,  "We recommended in our report the formation of a department of homeland security.  They ignored us".  (After stating Condolezza Rice had met with him on the subject 5 days before 9/11 regarding the report of US Commission on National Security in the 21st Century.  As a sidenote that report was written in Sept. 1999 George Bush took office in Jan 2001.  What did the previous administration do with it.)

Lots of callers on the radio bemoaning the "Hatchet job" on Bill Clinton.

No one really has any reason to claim pride in the efforts before 9/11 and I am getting sick of the attempt to make it look like Clinton was really after bin Laden.  I will post more from both sides as I come across them.

tags: 9/11, The+Path+to+9/11, ABC, Clinton, Al-Qaeda, bin+Laden