Senate Democrats Threaten ABC’s License over ‘Path to 9/11’

John Aravosis provides the full text of a letter by the Democratic leadership in the Senate to Disney over the “Path to 9/11” miniseries. The opening paragraphs:

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

As Aravosis correctly notes, the second paragraph is a scarcely vieled threat to ABC’s broadcast license. As AllahPundit puts it, “Wonderful network you’ve got there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.”

Ed Morrissey is right to point out that Republicans were outraged against CBS for unfair portrayals in “The Reagans” and lobbied to get it quashed. Still, they didn’t use the threat of government sanction against a broadcaster exercising its 1st Amendment rights.

The Democrats do not do subtlety, or do not do it successfully. They plan on using the power of the federal government to demand political changes to a program before it airs, a dangerous precedent and a completely different problem than what existed before.


If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it — and in this case, they had a point. They can organize protests and boycotts, letter-writing campaigns and so on. What they cannot do is to threaten a broadcast license for political differences, regardless of the situation. It violates the spirit of free speech and makes the Democrats look like Big Brother.

It is incredibly hamhanded. And apparently, completely unnecessary.

ABC plans to make minor changes to its docudrama on the run-up to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in response to heated complaints from former Clinton administration officials that a number of scenes are fabricated, a network executive said yesterday.

Thomas H. Kean, the Republican who chaired the 9/11 commission and is a co-executive producer of the film, said in an interview that he recently asked for changes that would address complaints raised by the former aides to President Bill Clinton and that ABC is considering his request.

The ABC executive said the “adjustments and refinements” are “intended to make clearer that it was general indecisiveness” by federal officials that left the country vulnerable to terrorist attacks, “not any one individual.” The executive, who requested anonymity because the network is making only written comments, said small revisions have been underway for weeks.

The network’s move came as the children’s publishing company Scholastic deleted from its Web site materials about “The Path to 9/11,” developed in partnership with ABC, that were being offered to 25,000 high school teachers. “We determined that the materials did not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues,” Chairman Dick Robinson said.

It looks like pressures on ABC to stick closer to the facts of the matter worked, rather than threats from the Democrats. Still, it is a dramatic recreation, not a documentary.

Executive Producer Marc Platt acknowledged that “there is dramatic license taken” in the docudrama to “render the program effective and accessible for viewers.” “But we do try within the boundaries of what is fair and reasonable to communicate the essence of what occurred (and) the intentions of those individuals involved,” he told Reuters in a telephone interview from London. “We have no intention or desire to be political, to intentionally distort.”

Platt also said one scene singled out for criticism by Democrats — depicting CIA operatives and Afghan fighters coming close to capturing Osama bin Laden in the 1990s, only for then-national security advisor Samuel Berger to refuse authorization of the mission — was a “conflation of events.” Berger said in a letter to Iger earlier this week that “no such episode ever occurred, nor did anything like it.”

Given the volatility of creating such a scene–based only loosely on bits and pieces of truth–one can understand Berger’s concern. The movie version of events would soon become “real” in the minds of many people. People tend to “learn” visually and video can be quite powerful in crowding out facts read on a page.

Still, that controversy seemed to be resolving itself just fine. Indeed, as AllahPundit observes, even staunch partisan Republican bloggers agreed on this point:

I conceded they had a point about the scene with Sandy Berger. Ace conceded it. Dean conceded it. Geraghty conceded it. Others have conceded it. Facts is facts, and “composite” scenes play a little too loose for a film about 9/11.

So, what did Reid et. al. hope to accomplish? And why is the Democratic Party website trying to stir up so much outrage over this?

A Despicable, Irresponsible Fraud

Alessandra Stanley has an interesting overview of the mini-series and the resultant controversy in today’s NYT.

All mini-series Photoshop the facts. “The Path to 9/11” is not a documentary, or even a docu-drama; it is a fictionalized account of what took place. It relies on the report of the Sept. 11 commission, the King James version of all Sept. 11 accounts, as well as other material and memoirs. Some scenes come straight from the writers’ imaginations. Yet any depiction of those times would have to focus on those who were in charge, and by their own accounts mistakes were made.But there is no dispute that in 2000, the destroyer Cole was attacked, Washington dithered and Mr. bin Laden’s men kept burrowing deeper and deeper into their plot to attack America on its own soil.

The first bombing of the World Trade Center happened on Bill Clinton’s watch. So did the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen. The president’s staff — and the civil servants who worked for them — witnessed the danger of Al Qaeda close up and personally. Some even lost their lives.

In 2001 President Bush and his newly appointed aides had ample warning, including a briefing paper titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” and they failed to take it seriously enough, but their missteps are not equal. It’s like focusing blame for a school shooting at the beginning of the school year on the student’s new home room teacher; the adults who watched the boy torment classmates and poison small animals knew better.

Still, as Stanley notes, the mini-series isn’t exactly kind to the Bush administration, either.

Regardless, however, attempts to spin events in ways favorable to its side is what political parties do. Pre-emptively striking at ABC’s docu-drama to lessen its impact is understandable if likely counterproductive (generating controversy almost invariably winds up being free publicity for a product few would otherwise have seen–think “The Last Temptation of Christ,” for example). Still, that’s all part of the political game.

Threatening broadcast networks, however, is not.

FILED UNDER: Blogosphere, Democracy, Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.


  1. Brian A. says:

    I agree people in Congress shouldn’t be threatening licenses regarding programming decisions they disagree with.


    “It looks like pressures on ABC to stick closer to the facts of the matter worked, rather than threats from the Democrats.”

    How do you know whether or not it has worked? Do you have an inside scoop on what’s been edited in the “docudrama”? Have all the ficitonal scenes been scrubbed?

  2. randall says:

    “hello pot it’s the kettle calling”. WOW, are the Democrats really upset about a docu-drama not telling the truth? They need to hire Michael Moore to make a film about what “really happened” on 9/11/01. It goes to show how the left wants to own the mass media and freedom of thought.

  3. legion says:

    It goes to show how the left wants to own the mass media and freedom of thought.

    …and how (because?) the right already does.

  4. legion says:

    Also, there’s a big difference between the right-wing outrage over the Reagan show and the left’s tizzy over this. Reagan was already out of power, and no matter how poorly he was portrayed, it would have no real impact on the political process. 9/11, on the other hand, is still very much a part of the scenery, and ABC’s show could have an impact on future elections. Hence, the additional outrage & heavier-handed threats by the Dems.

  5. Bandit says:

    Still, that’s all part of the political game.

    Threatening broadcast networks, however, is not.

    Like Hell – what do you think politics is for – it’s for power and control

  6. Fersboo says:

    Remember, ABC’s dissent is patriotic.

  7. 1) There are 400+ copies of the “unrevised” version of the show. Many in the hands of bloggers. Any edited scenes are likely to be scrutinized frame by frame. It won’t have as big of an effect, but it is likely to swing the needle some.

    2) This whole thing is a gift to the GOP. Not just that it highlights the democratic indifference to a rising islamofascist threat in the 90’s. But the democratic heavy handed way they show what they would do if returned to power. If the GOP doesn’t make an advertisement out of the democrats letter, then they are missing a great opportunity.

    3) The only way this could be better would be to have a replay of the CBS/Westmorland libel trial in time for 2008. A close second would be if the edits have Berger constantly stuffing secret documents down his pants.

    If ABC does make edits, perhaps they should change the disclaimer to the following.

    “This show has been edited from its original version based on complaints it was unfair from a former Clinton administration official who was convicted of stuffing his pants with top secret documents about his role in the ‘Path to 9/11’ which he later destroyed and because Democratic congressmen made thinly veiled threats to revoke the ABC broadcast license because they did not like the content of the show. The Democrats efforts to censor free speech that they disagree with have been at least partly successful and give a clear indication of the direction they would want to take the country if they gain control of any branch of government again.”

  8. Like Fersboo, I wondered why dissent suddenly became so un-American. At some level it reveals a real philosophical sickness that has overtaken much of the left. They still seem to believe that reality can be whatever they are able to define it as. Jeff Goldstein hammers this point home ad nauseum, but, alas, it seems necessary to keepo doing so.

    Whatever happened to, “Hey, get a grip, it’s a TeeVee show”?

  9. lily says:

    I thought you would be less partisan and more fair in your writing on this subject.
    There is no comparison between this movie and the one about Reagan. The Reagan movie depicted him saying something bigoted. Well if that is historically inaccurate and out-of-character, then the movie should have been pulled. But as inaccuracies go, it simply isn’t in the same league as ABC’s movie. ABC’s movie has a whole series of major lies which can’t be tweaked out of the script without making a mess of the plot. There is a scene linking the Monica incident to a failure on Clinton’s part to respond to information abut terrorism–in contradiction of the 911 Commission’s findings. There is a scene where Clinton turns down an opportunity to kill Bin Ladin–he was never given that option, according to the 911 Commission. The lies are on that level of historical distortion. I am surprised that you can’t see how important it is that a movie depicting a historical event, timed to influence an election, must either be accurate, or not shown. Really, you need to think about this again. What kind of democracy will we be if TV networks are allowed to use their power to spread disinformation on behalf of one political party during an election year, on the pretense of news or entertainment? This only a First Amendment issue if ABC labelled the movie as a political advertisement and promoted it as advertising. How would you feel if CBS was running “Fahrenheit 911” on the 11th supposedly as fiction for entertainment purposes?

  10. legion says:

    Whatever happened to, “Hey, get a grip, it’s a TeeVee show”?

    If it had been advertised as a dramatization from the beginning, you’d be right on. But ABC has been (and still is) pimping this as a factual account, based on the 9/11 Commission report. Well, members of the Commission themselves are saying that important parts of the show are pure crap, and ABC has so far refused to let any non-right-wing media see a review copy. Further, the (now scrubbed, thankfully) potential of tens of thousands of copies of this tripe being deliverd free to schools & used to “educate” children on what actually (didn’t) happen that day fully warrant the bombardment ABC and Disney are getting.

  11. Michael says:

    The problem isn’t that this “docu-drama” isn’t always factual, it the fact that it is advertised as being based on the 9/11 commission AND individual accounts, without discerning which scenes came from which source.

    Why is this a problem? Because people hear that it’s based off the 9/11 commission report, and assume that things shown in “docu-drama” are at least in part based on that. Example from the NYT article linked to by James:

    The Sept. 11 commission concluded that the sex scandal distracted the Clinton administration from the terrorist threat.

    Supposedly this is something depicted by the movie as having happened, but was that the conclusion of the 9/11 commission?

    Everyone involved in the decision had, of course, been aware of President Clinton’s problems. He told them to ignore them. Berger recalled the President saying to him “that they are going to get crap either way, so they should do the right thing.” All his aides testified to us that they based their advice solely on national security considerations. We have found no reason to question their statements.

    Furthermore, referencing the aftermath of the cruise missile attacks on Al Qaeda camps, the reports states:

    The failure of the strikes, the “wag the dog” slur, the intense partisanship of
    the period, and the nature of the al Shifa evidence likely had a cumulative effect
    on future decisions about the use of force against Bin Ladin.

    Taken from Page 118 of the 9/11 Commission report

    You all remember the “wag the dog” meme don’t you? Something about starting unnecessary foreign wars to distract from domestic issues?

  12. Michael says:

    There is a scene where Clinton turns down an opportunity to kill Bin Ladin—he was never given that option, according to the 911 Commission.

    I have verified Lily’s statement, it can be found on pages 111 to 115 of the commission’s report. There was a plan to capture Bin Laden, but it was never more than a plan. The CIA took responsibility for cancelling the action, and the plan was never presented to the White House.

  13. Michael says:

    As for those who say we shouldn’t be upset about a work of fiction not matching up with reality, would you say the same thing if ABC was broadcasting a “docu-drama” that tried to deny the Holocaust?

    Sure, maybe they’re not in the same league, but they’re of the same principle. So either you are ok with this movie on the principle that is is fiction and therefore ok to distort history, or you are ok with this movie specifically because of the content of this movie.

  14. James Joyner says:


    I haven’t seen the movie and have no plan to. As I noted in the post, though, making up things about such a volatile and sensitive public is a bad thing and something that has been condemned by many right-leaning bloggers.

    The concern here, though, is about Senators using the power of their office to threaten media outlets’ licenses for exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

  15. floyd says:

    every democrat in congress is a “despicable irresponsible fraud” they should love this film, if it is as they say it is![lol]

  16. Michael says:

    One more, while the topic is hot:

    ABC plans to make minor changes to its docudrama on the run-up to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in response to heated complaints from former Clinton administration officials that a number of scenes are fabricated, a network executive said yesterday.

    That’s all well and encouraging, until you read the email sent to Hugh Hewitt:

    The Disney execs met all through the weekend – unheard of in this business – debating what changes would be made and what concessions should be given. Here is what looks to be the conclusion:

    – There will be a handful of tweaks made to a few scenes.
    – They are minor, and nuance in most cases – a line lift here, a tweak to the edit there.
    – There are 900 screeners out there. When this airs this weekend, there will be a number of people who will spend their free evenings looking for these changes and will be hard pressed to identify them. They are that minor.
    – The average viewer would not be able to tell the difference between the two versions.
    – The message of the Clinton Admin failures remains fully intact.

    So maybe the demand for accuracy isn’t working after all. The obviously biased email-er then goes on to say:

    As I understand this, the lawyers and production team spent literally months corroborating every story point down to the sentence.

    But at the end of their mad scramble, they found only a handful of changes they could make and still be true to the events.

    Time to fire those lawyers and production team if I could debunk entire scenes after a cursory reading of the 9/11 commission report. However, the entire email is suspect because nobody in their right mind would then go on to say about ABC

    this is the first time they’ve been labeled right-wing, conservative conspiracists.

    well, the first time since they threatened to block the release of Fahrenheit 9/11 anyway.

  17. Michael says:

    I can certainly understand your concerns for protecting he Constitution. However, the Democrats have a very valid point behind their not so subtle threat. ABC is given access to their airwaves on the understanding that it is for the general wellfare of the population. If ABC or any other media outlet uses that access in an attempt to deceive the population, then they should have that access taken away. Remember the complaints aren’t that the movie makes the Democrats look bad (supposedly it also maked Republicans look bad), the complaint is that is is being marketed as a truthful account while depicting events that never happened.

    The right was outraged by the CBS report about Bush being AWOL from the National Guard, because the report was based off of forged documents. But, would you have been ok with CBS airing a “docu-drama” depicting Bush being AWOL and marketing it as being based off of US Military records?

  18. James Joyner says:


    Depends what you mean “Okay with.” I don’t think either the current case or your hypothetical example are “okay” in the sense of being good things. I think both are “okay” in the sense of being well within the rights of the broadcaster.

    FWIW, I think the whole “public interest” requirement is specious. The airwaves need to be regulated for technical reasons and bandwidth should be auctioned off. But broadcasters ought be free to air what they wish, with incredibly narrow exceptions.

  19. Michael says:

    I’m glad to hear you objective principle in the matter, even while I disagree with the side you take on the principle. However, I think it would be fair to said that had my hypothetical example actually been real, that members of the republican party would be lofting similar threats (see NPR for example), and members of the right blogosphere would be similarly outraged.

  20. legion says:

    The concern here, though, is about Senators using the power of their office to threaten media outlets’ licenses for exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

    Ah, but claiming something is historically accurate, or at least based on a definitive historical report, when significant chunks are instead based on individual recollections (or just flat-out made up by the producers) does not fall under 1st Amendment protection. Although I too haven’t seen it, some of the descriptions I’ve seen posted could concievably fall into the realm of slander…

  21. lily says:

    This isn’t a First Amendment issue. The FCC regulates businesses like ABC to avoid precisely this kind of abuse of power. Again if ABC called the movie an political ad and meet the legal requirements around campaign financing, then they would be within their rights and responsibilities to show it. They are out of line legally as well as morally by showing propaganda as entertainment or fact.

  22. James Joyner says:


    It’d be hard to say this is slander, given that it’s based on actual events, just conflated and dramatized. It’s not disputed that the Clinton administration decided not to go after bin Laden when they had the chance–only whether that chance was as golden as portrayed.

    In any case, the recourse for slander would be for the aggrieved party–none of whom is a signatory to that letter–to sue Disney, not an act of Congress.

  23. Michael says:

    It’s not disputed that the Clinton administration decided not to go after bin Laden when they had the chance

    James, Clinton was never given the chance. The CIA, CSG, and NSC all looked into the possibility of going after Bin Laden, and they made the determination that the likelihood of success was too small, and the consequences of failure too large, for it to be a viable option. So no, according to the 9/11 commission, the Clinton administration did not have a chance, golden or otherwise.

  24. James, Clinton was never given the chance.

    Wow, and I thought Clinton was in charge of the Executive branch of government for 8 years. I guess it’s true that you do learn something new every day.

  25. Michael says:

    I have to agree with James that slander is a bit out of the question here. I also have to disagree with your feeling that showing propaganda as entertainment is over the line. You would be surprised how much propaganda you watch in the form of entertainment without realizing it. In fact, you could say that people find propaganda entertaining.

    My sole complaint is that this “docu-drama” is being marketed as fact-based, when major aspects of the “fact-based” storyline are not based on fact at all.

  26. Fersboo says:

    This whole thing is kind of funny. Who would imagine that the Democrats would have people defending a move like this. Reminds me of, hmmm wait a minute, uhmmmm, o’yeah, Janet Jackson’s nipple being flashed across the screen at the Super Bowl. Free speech, licenses, FCC, decency, yada, yada, yada.

  27. legion says:

    Well, when Janet Jackson’s nipple runs for office, you let me know. 🙂

  28. Wayne says:

    The MSM including CBS, ABC and NBC put on propaganda pieces and shows all the time. Most of the time it is liberal propaganda that they promote and the liberals defend it vigorously. Now they are on the receiving end and they do not like it. How many times have they spread lies and accusation against the Bush administration. Perhaps the government should get involve in truth in programs. Stop spending money on NPR and do away with the monopoly the big three have and open it to competition.

    The claims Clinton did much of anything against terrorist organization is a joke. Clinton failed for 8 years before 911. Bush failed for 8 months before 911.

  29. Herb says:

    Finally, the truth comes out where everyone can see it.

    Freedom of Speach only applies to Democrats and is not applicable to anyone else. Any deviation of Freedom of Speach that remotely applies a negative light on “Their Fair Haired Boy”, and the Democrats cry, whine, and threaten those who dare expose Clinton and the Democrats for the two faced, power hungry party, they are

    One can only conclude that,

    “The Truth Hurts”

    I love every minute of it because now, everyone can see the Democrats for exactly what they are.

  30. concerned citizen says:

    There is a big difference between a 9-11 docu-drama on a major network and a film by Michael Moore. Networks use the public airways and are regulated by the federal government. If, in fact, the charges are accurate and the program is right wing propaganda intended to help the Republican Party in an election year, that is a clear violation of federal law and a betrayal of the public trust (the public giving Disney/ABC a license to use its airways). So Reid’s “threat” in his letter is in fact entirely appropriate, not a limitation on free speech. The crux of the matter is whether these charges are accurate. If so, and if Disney airs the program, then serious consideration must be given to revoking their license.

  31. When are all of you going to comprehend that opposition to the party line is evil, or perhaps even a sign of mental instability. Oh my, the reeducation camps that we are going to have to build come January.

  32. Herb says:

    Happy Days are Here Again:

    It looks like the Democrats are going to be successful in,

    “Eliminating Freedom of Speech”

    Congratulations Democrats, You are making a mockery of our Constitution in order to cover your rear ends and show how your Monica Boy screwed up and let Bin Laden get away to “Take the Towers Down”.

  33. clearwaterconservative says:

    As a conservative I STRONLY urge ABC to correct the falsehoods and misrepresentations in the upcoming “Path to 9/11” before it is shown. And I am not the only conservative say this.

    John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor says: The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint.

    James Taranto, editor says: The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch “The Reagans.”

    Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog says: One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.

    Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor says: When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account.

    Captain’s Quarters blog says:If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it — and in this case, they had a point.

    Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator says: Look, “The Path to 9/11” is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen.

  34. Michael says:

    To Herb and Charles and all the other “Democrats are against Freedom of Speech” kneejerks:

    This is not about whether or not ABC has the right to broadcast whatever trash they like. This is about whether ABC can claim that it represents historical fact when it deviates significantly and importantly and, dare I say, intentionally from historical fact. So stop wasting space on OTB’s servers ranting about freedom of speech when it’s about misrepresentation of a product. McDonald’s can’t claim their BigMac is fat-free, and nobody says their freedom of speech is being limited.

  35. Lin Bowles says:

    I am in no position of influence, except as a voter and consumer. Therefore, I will carefully consider what “A Path to 9/11 says about the Republican Party and ABC’s standards and policies.

    I am a person of honor and integrity, and if I find such lacking in Disney and ABC, it will definitely affect my viewing, buying and voting choices.

    Sure, “Bring it on!”, but don’t be surprised if there are repercussions!

  36. Kent G. Budge says:

    I never thought I’d be sympathizing with the Democrats over gross misrepresentations in a TV drama. That’s because, up until now, there was good reason to believe that the TV producers were solidly on the Democrats’ side.

    Now I’m trying to decide whether I really like this step towards more balanced libel.

    I think the best approach for the Republicans would be to put a sympathetic arm around the Democrats’ shoulder, and say, “Yeah, I can relate completely. It’s kind of how we felt about the Reagan miniseries and most of Michael Moore’s ‘documentaries.’ I think we’re together on this.” That is, publicly agree that the show is fabricating events and that it oughtn’t shouldn’t, that this does not raise the level of public discourse.

    But not to the point where both sides agree on more McCain-Feingold-like approaches to television regulation.

  37. Joseph S says:

    On the aftermath of 9/11 2001, George Bush and his administration have every resource available to them to fight Osama Bin Laden and the war on terrorism. Some of the resources are the $19 billion he has spent on the war, 140,000 troops he has deployed in the middle east, revoking the civil rights of the American people by means of the Patriot Act, Wire taping, spying on their finances, and the 5 year time from 9/11 to the present. He had all these and yet he is finding a very long and a very hard time on laying a hand on Osama Bin Laden and terrorism. So the question is, what is ABC’s “The Path to 9/11” asking from the Clinton admistration where he had none of any resource that Bush has? Should they have done a better job if they have focus on aftermath of 9/11, and in so order asking why did he waste all the resources that was given to him by the fear of the American people from 9/11 and terrorism.