The ABC docudrama does a pretty good job of describing the enemy and the frustrations of John ONeill of the FBI. But among all the tongue-wagging, I can only remember hearing the name of Richard Clarke once, another one of the annoying realities of the partisan-ridden blogosphere. Be that as it may, I think another wave of Americans are going to start reading his book. He comes across fairly well in part one.
The dramatization makes it clear that we had informants at the right places at the right times, but doesn't make it so very clear about the false positives which must have emboldened the foot-draggers. It's too late now, of course, but that is some perspective I think should have been included, at least one overblown mistake created by a bad lead.
I'm also looking back at several other post which are related:
Other than that, there's not much I have to criticize the show about. It appears completely reasonable to me. The treatment of Berger is evenhanded I think, though I really have to say that Clinton ordering cruise missiles looks more and more like a committee decision. The CIA looks pretty good in this.
I've gotta say though, just watching the whole dramatic sequence with the planes taking off on 9/11 gave me the creeps. I really don't want to watch that part.
Recent Comments