The above statement shows that you just don't get my point at all. While this mini-series portrays itself as a history of events up to 9/11, it 'dramatizes' several things for effect. That is not history, it is fiction. PERIOD. If you want to portray something as a history then stick to the facts, not what you supposed might have happened or similar to what happened.
If you want to debate the merits of the program or the Clinton administrations' reaction to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, then present some facts, not scenes from a TV movie or discredited innuendo. And if you really want to debate the history of our dealings with terrorist organizations then you might want to go further back, to the Carter administration, and through the Reagan, Bush I and Clinton adminsitrations. If I remember correctly, only one administration ever tried to make a deal with a terror organization and its supporters. It also happened to be the first one that tried to strike back at the state supporters of terrorism. Can you guess the administration? To get a full historical perspective on this country's experience with terrorism you have to look back a lot further than the 90's.
One more historical inaccuracy that was pointed out in a review was the misidentification of the newspaper that was the source of the leak about the US tracking Bin Laden's satellite phone as the Washington Post. Can anyone guess the newspaper that did leak that info?
Yes, its a TV show, but most of the stuff in it is right on the money. Don't worry, nobody is going to cite "Path to 9/11" in their college thesis as a legit source. It sure beats the Colbert Report or weekend update, where lots of my generation gets their "news."
Re-read (if you haven't already) chapter 4 of the 9/11 report, a document which I assume we can agree is reliable enough. I wasn't able to copy text of it, but on page 114 it talks about who gave the decision to call off a particular raid (the last good chance) to get Bin Laden. One of the big problems was Clinton wouldn't authorize direct assassination, and they had to jump through hoops for extraction. The right decision at that time: maybe/maybe not, but it had consequences. Also, all of Clinton's high level NSC appointees all point fingers now about who canceled the raid. Nobody wanted to be held accountable back then if anything went wrong because they knew Clinton would hang them out to dry. (that last sentence is my own inference based on all the finger pointing they did in their testimony)
That is not leadership.
I have been re-reading the 9/11 report today, and the mini-series so far did a damn good job following that document. I challenge anyone who thinks differently to re-read it after they watch the show. By the way, the UAE prince story is also in chapter 4-- it is not as you say "discredited innuendo."
Lets be reasonable: this al-Qaeda business (but not "terrorism," which is just a tactic) starts with Bush #1 and Saddam, not Carter or Reagan. Saddam invades Kuwait, we are threatened about stability and oil, we liberate Kuwait and station troops in SAUDIA ARABIA. Troops in Saudi --> pisses off UBL, he starts attacking us. That is highly simplified, and i am sure lots of people will disagree, but in a strategic sense that is the timeline. Anything before that may have led us there, but we could have chosen to act differently regarding Kuwait, and bin Laden would probably not have focused on attacking the USA.