As Stephen Colbert put it, truth has a “liberal bias”; Bush conservatives much prefer the imagined revisionism that tells them they are always right. The truthiness that says Iraq was about building Democracy from the start, that there was a link between Hussein and the terrorists, that everything wrong under the Bush administration either doesn’t exist or was Clinton’s fault.

Well, they’re taking that last old chestnut and putting it on the fire again. In a new ABC miniseries, a “dramatization” of the 9/11 Commission report, 9/11 is being recast as a debacle of the Clinton legacy.

Some reports have claimed that the miniseries is more even-handed, that it lays blame on both administrations, but early indicators suggest otherwise. The screenwriter of the 5- to 6-hour miniseries is a buddy of Rush Limbaugh’s, and as pre-publicity for the miniseries (airing on September 10 and 11), DVD screeners and special showings were made available to conservative pundits and bloggers only–who are now raving about the miniseries. (Addenda: while conservatives are cheering a sack of lies, their “family values” cohorts are forcing many CBS stations to drop a 9/11 documentary, because “curse words” were not being censored. Good thing they have their priorities straight: lies posing as history, good; curse words spoken by real people in accurate portrayal, unacceptable.)

Firedoglake has the best run-down of the story, and describes examples of why right-wingers love the documentary so much. The “dramatization,” for example:

• had the CIA and Northern Afghani Alliance “surrounding bin Laden’s house,” when a phone call was put in to the Clinton White House, which nixed the operation. (In fact, we were never that close to bin Laden, and the operation to find him and take him out was never presented to the Clinton White House.)
• had the Clinton administration doing “nothing” to al Qaeda in response to the bombing of the USS Cole. (In fact, al Qaeda was not identified as responsible for the USS Cole attack until Bush was in office–and it was Bush who decided to do “nothing.” Firedoglake further points out that if Clinton, in the heat of the 2000 elections, had started a major military offensive against al Qaeda with no evidence they were involved, conservatives would have cried bloody murder.)

These mesh seamlessly with long-term efforts of revisionism within the right wing. The first incident is redolent of the oft-told lie that Sudan and a guy named Mansoor Ijaz practically offered bin Laden to Clinton on a silver platter, and Clinton neglectfully turned down the offer. Ijaz, now a commentator on Fox News, retells the story as if he had bin Laden tied up in a sack and begged Clinton to take him, but Clinton refused. Various stories have him trying to hand over bin Laden once, twice, and even three different times. The whole lie is dissected here. Essentially, Sudan made an offer of questionable validity, but Clinton tried to get bin Laden anyway. His hands were tied, however, by the fact that at the time there was no evidence that bin Laden had done anything illegal within U.S. jurisdiction. Clinton tried to get the Saudis to take bin Laden, but they said no. The deal was simply unworkable, though Clinton did make an effort.

The second mischaracterized incident above also rings of right-wing revisionism, namely the whole “Clinton never tried to get bin Laden” fallacy. In fact, Clinton did try–and was rebuffed by Congressional conservatives. As told by Richard Clarke (portrayed in the miniseries with John O’Neill as frustrated by the Clinton administration):

Because of the intensity of the political opposition that Clinton encountered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in “Wag the Dog” tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life. For similar reasons, he could not fire the recalcitrant FBI director who had failed to fix the Bureau or to uncover terrorists in the United States. …

Clarke, in fact, blamed the Bush administration, not the Clinton administration, for the grievous errors made.

Similarly, in 1996, Clinton approached the Republican-controlled Congress with several anti-terrorism initiatives–including wiretapping, albeit done legally and constitutionally (audio file of Clinton via CNN). The Republicans rebuffed Clinton and turned down the plans, called Clinton’s effort to track explosives “a phony issue,” and said that wiretapping was questionable. Clinton also wanted to attack al Qaeda financially by barring foreign banks and businesses from accessing the American financial market if they associated with terrorist groups; Republican Phil Gramm shot that part down, calling it “totalitarian.” In the end, Republicans severely watered down Clinton’s bill–and today they blame Clinton because enough was not done, and today whine that had Bush’s illegal versions of what Clinton tried legally in the 90’s been in place, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened. Well, Clinton tried, and the GOP trashed it.

Richard Clarke outlined even more when he told of the efforts that he and John O’Neill made to carry over the Clinton administration’s concern over al Qaeda to the Bush administration–where they were effectively blown off. The Clinton administration had a counter-terrorism strategy that worked, and for years had been trying to get bin Laden. When Clarke and O’Neill tried to warn the Bushies about it, they were shown indifference. The Bush administration was far more concerned about Iraq, with heavy players within its ranks planning a second invasion even before the administration took power.

Another consideration which few remember is the Bush administration’s disdain for terrorism as an issue before 9/11. I seldom read or hear of anyone bringing up the fact that Bush not only neglected the terrorism issue, but that they had a strong motive to push it to the back burner. Namely: the missile defense initiative. If you’ll recall, since the very beginning of his administration, Bush was pushing for a missile defense shield, and in May 2001, even started his rant against Saddam Hussein in his push for this expensive white elephant, showing Clarke to be correct in Bush’s determination to get Hussein out even before 9/11; his rhetoric in this speech was almost identical to that he pushed after 9/11–but it was not aimed at terrorists, it was aimed at potential nuclear states.

In fact, the chief argument against Bush’s missile defense initiative was the fact that terrorists and rogue nations were incredibly unlikely to lob nuclear-tipped missiles at us, knowing that the limited damage they would do to us would be answered with complete nuclear annihilation in return. Bush’s critics pointed out that these states would instead work like terrorists, smuggling in nuclear weapons on cargo ships or in suitcases, placing emphasis on fighting terrorism, not building an albatross at great expense with unlikely usability. Clinton’s counter-terrorism was not about missiles, it was about tracking terrorists and beefing up security at ports and airports.

The Bush administration, therefore, had every reason–politically–to downplay real counter-terrorism in favor of the missile shield. Look at Bush’s first address to Congress in February 2001:

Our nation also needs a clear strategy to confront the threats of the 21st century — threats that are more widespread and less certain. They range from terrorists who threaten with bombs to tyrants in rogue nations intent upon developing weapons of mass destruction.  To protect our own people, our allies and friends, we must develop and we must deploy effective missile defenses.

That was Bush’s answer to terrorism: the missile defense shield. And that was his only mention of terrorism in the speech. Bush pushed the missile defense issue for months, and barely mentioned terrorism except in support of the missile shield, despite how Clinton administration officials emphasized it to his administration. Even when Bush gave a speech at the Oklahoma City memorial, he did not mention terrorism once. He did say:

The presence of evil always reminds us of the need for vigilance.  All of us have an obligation to confront evil, wherever and whenever it manifests itself.  We must enforce laws and reject hatred and bigotry.  And we have a duty to watch for warning signs.

Too bad he was asleep at the switch and didn’t see the clear signs of disaster.