READER DEANNA HEAVEN emails that she just watched The Path to 9/11 in New Zealand:

Seeing all the attacks of the 90s laid out and dramatized (with a couple of screwed-up attempts to get Bin Laden thrown in) was kind of shocking, even for someone who is already familiar with the facts. I understand why the Clinton people do not want this to air. About the two disputed scenes: Berger does not slam down the phone but he comes of very very badly anyway. The scene with Albright doesn’t look to have changed at all (from descriptions I heard earlier). I tend to share Lileks’ (and your) view about pre-9/11 actions getting a pass, but I must say, seeing one incompetent act after another does make me angry with the Clinton Administration. I imagine it might have the same effect on other viewers.

It is not the most exciting or well paced film, but it is nonetheless completely riveting. Watch it.

Well, we certainly could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble if we’d acted more vigorously in the 1990s. But hindsight is always 20/20.

UPDATE: Best take yet: ” It’s too late to decide to attack Bin Laden, so let’s attack this TV show.” Don’t miss the “prurient right-wing video.”

And Howard Mortman reminds us of this review by Richard Posner on the 9/11 Commission report.

MORE: I agree with this comment: “This firestorm is a lose-lose for Dems. Any rational voter can compare the Bush reaction to Farenheit 911 and the current Clinton reaction, and draw appriopriate conclusions.”

More on the film and the controversy, including another viewer report from Down Under, here.