Clinton Argues With History

Bill Clinton is perturbed that ABC is showing his actions against terrorism in a truthful light:

WASHINGTON - A furious Bill Clinton is warning ABC that its mini-series "The Path to 9/11" grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden - and he is demanding the network "pull the drama" if changes aren't made.

Clinton pointedly refuted several fictionalized scenes that he claims insinuate he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about bin Laden and that a top adviser pulled the plug on CIA operatives who were just moments away from bagging the terror master, according to a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger obtained by The Post.

The former president also disputed the portrayal of then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as having tipped off Pakistani officials that a strike was coming, giving bin Laden a chance to flee.

History tends to judge presidential actions in a harsh way within the first decade or so. Note the way that Reagan was portrayed.

Clinton never answered for his actions to the public so ABC is doing it for him. The network of George Stephanopolous wants to show history unadulterated and deserves praise if they don't cave.

The interesting thing is that the show is based on the 9/11 Commission findings. All of the information that Clinton could have provided that august group was not provided as some was taken from the National Archives in Sandy Burger's pants. That said, I ask this: If the documentary shows Clinton in a bad light based on information they had, how would Clinton have been portrayed if the information Burger "lost" was made available?

Bill Clinton has essentially been given a free ride these last five years. Everytime his name is mentioned we are scolded to not bring up the past. Hell, look on this site at the comments over the last three and a half years. Well I for one am going to ensure that I continue to hammer home that Clinton was responsible for a major portion of the events of 9/11.