As if we didn't have enough trouble determining what has really happened in our past already, the new version of history of September 11th will be available on ABC shortly.
Pardon me if I have a problem with this (that goes hand in hand, I must say, with my distaste for the Assassination TV, the Uruk-Hai known on our Earth as Michael Moore, media sensationalism, the Nazgul known as Ann Coulter, ad nauseum, ad infinitum....).
This is something that, for me, would be laughable if it didn't follow the 'war on history' pattern that has circulated around the internet for some years now. If you're wondering what I'm talking about, tell me if you've ever recieved the "we attacked Germany in WWII, and they never attacked us" email.
This would be laughable if there was actually a coherent and concrete national belief regarding the lead up to our current state of affairs. There is no serious historical question that the South lost the battle of Gettysburg, for example, and therefore authors like Newt Gingrich and Harry Turtledove can write all the 'what ifs' and 'historical fantasies' they want about the South winning the battle, winning the war and world history based on that outcome. But that stuff is only good reading if you know the real story and can appreciate the distinctions.
Unfortunately, there is little or no consensus among historians and punditry regarding the war on terror, and not much on the events leading up to September 11th. (Perhaps there will be, with the release of the 9/11 Commission Report as a very well done and pop culture accessible Graphic Novel.)
Too many are engaged in "blame the other side" theatrics rather than pointing out true missteps and failings, and addressing incorrect perceptions that led leaders and agents to make the decisions that might have seemed accurate at the time but costly in the long run.
What this kind of thing leaves us with is a wildly distorted view of history, and that is not a good thing for a society facing the challenges of security vs. privacy, civil rights, and policy that we are currently engaged in. You cannot solve a problem if you do not first know what the problem is, what methods have already been tried, and the honest assessments of effectiveness.
And to muddy those already difficult-to-navigate waters by confusing fantasy and histroy for nothing more than political and monetary gain? That's called moving in the wrong direction.