And I'm really kinda surprised that liberals who weren't directly responsible for Clinton's policies would want to go to bat to defend his record on this issue. I mean, look at the threat al-Qaeda presented on January 20, 1993, to the threat al-Qaeda presented on January 20, 2001. Do they really want to argue that the job was done? Do they really think that the response to the Khobar Towers bombing - compromising the identities of the Iranian agents involved - was sufficient? Were the missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan in response to the embassy bombings enough? How about Clinton's response to the bombing of the USS Cole?

. 

I was surprised to read in one of Woodward's books about the decision to not approve Northern Alliance raids on bin Laden's convoys, because women and children were present. I can understand the thinking that goes into a decision like that, but that doesn't mean that in the long run, it wasn't the wrong one.

. 

By the way - I'll whack away - and do in the book - at W.'s record from January 20, 2001 to about Sept. 13-14, 2001. The good news was that the first week of September 2001, discussions about options to oppose the Taliban, including regime change, began. The bad news is/was, they were way too late, and the officials principally responsible didn't give this nearly the priority it deserved.

Anyway, when I heard in the Corner that there was a concerted effort to push back against this made-for-TV movie, I was skeptical. But I guess there really are folks who want to persuade us that all of the faults of the Bush administration depicted in the movie are accurate, but the faults of the Clinton administration depicted in it are fiction.

However, I agree with Dean Barnett. I'm not a fan of "dramatized," "composite," "evocative" scenes, particularly when they're so accusatory. I seem to recall the Reagan movie on CBS a few years back having Reagan say some harsh anti-gay statements that either he never said, or there's no record of him ever saying, and I felt that was stretching artistic license to hit below the belt. You're putting words in people's mouths, without giving 'em a chance to respond.

If the movie were made by Producer Jim, and I wanted to expose the failures of Sandy Berger, I'd probably go with FBI Director Louis Freeh's accounts, particularly regarding the Khobar Towers attack. At least there, you've got one witness.

And with this posting, I'm concluding my coverage from this side of the Atlantic until Election Day. Back to the USA soon, to promote the book, check out some key elections, and reconnect with a home culture, life and many people that I've missed greatly.

If you're in the Philly area, or some other community where book readership and the Simon & Schuster publicity team's optimism meet, I hope to cross paths with you soon.