If the left is having a hissy about ABC’s “The Path to 9/11″, they will most likely explode in place as more works come out in the coming weeks and months. The effort to “clear the decks” on the truth about the Clinton administration’s inactions during the 90s that led to 9/11, are on the way from what I hear.

More and more former ICs, silenced it would seem up to this point are going to be telling their story to the MSM, through books, and TV specials.

The Path to 9/11 is actually going to be the launch pad for some works which came out in the last few years but were given no media coverage due to their content. Catastrophe: Clinton’s Role in America’s Worst Disaster,
by Christopher Ruddy, Carl Limbacher, of Newsmax has been literally flying off the shelves at Amazon, and in fact is back ordered.

Again, you can’t hide the facts forever, as the 9/11 Commission Report stated Clinton had his chance, but blew it off:

“The Clinton administration had as many as four chances to kill or capture bin Laden between December 1998 and July 1999, but all the operations were scuttled because of uncertain intelligence and fears that civilians or dignitaries might be killed. In one example, in May 1999, sources provided detailed reports about bin Laden’s whereabouts in the Kandahar area over a period of five nights, but strikes were not ordered because the military was concerned about the accuracy of the reports and the risk of collateral damage, investigators found.

“Having a chance to get [bin Laden] three times in 36 hours and foregoing the chance each time has made me a bit angry,” a CIA unit chief wrote to a colleague, adding that Tenet “finds himself alone at the table, with the other princip[als] basically saying ‘we’ll go along with your decision Mr. Director,’ and implicitly saying that the Agency will hang alone if the attack doesn’t get [bin Laden].”

In fact I’m told that there will even be some appearances by a couple of CIA ops who – in spite of Richard Clarke’s denial – WERE on the ground that day in Afghanistan surrounding the safehouse where Osama Bin Laden was believed to be holding up. They would sure like Clarke to meet them personally and tell them they weren’t there.

Of Clarke has a lot to cover for, so you don’t have to wonder why he’s covering that fat ass of his now. And you all might have thought at just what memos Sandy Berger was shuffing in his BVDs.

UPDATE: Not worth a new post, but the NY Times throws additional shrilling, and more Clarke quoting. But there is this laughable quote:

“Days before its scheduled debut, the first major television miniseries about the Sept. 11 attacks was being criticized on Tuesday as biased and inaccurate by bloggers, terrorism experts and a member of the Sept. 11 commission, whose report makes up much of the film‚Äôs source material.”

It should also be noted that there are many, many in the IC community who worked in the Clinton Administration who are giving this two thumbs up.

UPDATE: More at Sister Toldja, plus a point. You didn’t see all this anger when Michael Moore’s muckamentory Farenfarce 911 came out in 2004.