Looks like somebody took the warning seriously:

The White House is in full panic mode trying to find a way to spin the now-admitted fact that George Tenet did indeed brief Condi Rice on July 10, 2001 about the terror threat. The latest damage control approach has been to claim that the report was "nothing new".

So how come when then-Attorney General John Ashcroft heard the same warning a week later, he immediately stopped flying commercial aircraft?

Yea, a few people would like to know why the Attorney General took steps to protect himself, but nothing to protect the public.

You've heard about the now-discounted report that Clinton turned down a deal from Sudan to turn over Osama Bin Laden. But it seems that the Taliban offered the same deal to Bush in February, 2001. Watch the video.

Keith Olbermann:

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party -- tabled that.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election -- ignored that.

Those who wondered of his qualifications -- forgot that.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President -- and those around him -- did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."

They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated al-Qaida as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11 is "lying by implication."

The impolite phrase is "impeachable offense."

Read the rest.

Kos sums it up nicely:

Actually, the strategy of the terrorists is to sow terror. I thought that was self-explanatory.

And if sowing terror is their goal, this administration has made the terrorists' strategy a resounding success. We, as a nation, have evolved from Patrick Henry's inspirational, "Give me liberty or give me death!", to Bush's "Give me your liberties or you'll die." We have even color-coded our fear.

My column for this week points out that 43 percent of Americans wrongly believe that Saddam Hussein had direct connections to 9/11.

It looks like our own Jim Gibbons is part of that 43 percent.

They not only made up events for the mockumentary "Path to 9/11," they couldn't even get the names right:

They didn't even get Secretary of State Albright's name right. Her first name is Madeleine, not Madeline. Geez. For $40 million could these guys have at least hired a copy editor? They don't even get the small things right. What a total negligent disaster.

I have been following the debate on the ABC docu-drama "Path to 9/11." AMERICAblog is the only non-right-wing entity to get a copy of the show, and has detailed the falsehoods.

For a show being billed as "Based on the 9/11 Commission Report," it seems the producers didn't even read the document, as there are such obvious, glaring errors that even Chris Wallace of Fox News is pointing them out.

There is far more defamatory material in this film than in the CBS show "The Reagans" which that network killed under pressure from conservatives.

I would be very surprised if ABC goes ahead and airs this tonight. They weren't planning on running any commercials, so it actually will make them money to pull it and run somthing else. They could be facing lawsuits if they run it, since the people defamed are very much alive, and calling it a "docu-drama" gives them no protection. The embarrassment they will have from pulling it is nothing compared to the criticism they will receive for putting this fiction on the air.

Bill Clinton's lawyer writes to ABC. Here's a sample:

By ABC's own standard, ABC has gotten it terribly wrong. The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has a duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely. It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known.

The chips continue to fall for ABC's 9/11 mockumentary:

Well there you have it. Disney/ABC just admitted that they made a Mickey Mouse version of the September 11 story. They fictionalized it. How do you fictionalize one of the greatest tragedies in American history, not to mention a tragedy that only happened a few years ago?

It's one thing for Disney/ABC to make up some scenes with fictional characters that no one has ever heard of. It's quite another to use REAL people's names and then just make shit up about them. That's defamatory and fodder for a lawsuit, not to mention total revisionist history.

ABC is in legal peril here. This isn't like Oliver Stone's JFK where he fictionalized events about dead people. This film tells an admittedly untrue story about living officials, from Bill Clinton to Sandy Berger to Madeline Allbright.

Watch for one or more of them to sue Disney today or tomorrow to stop the airing of this film.