A whirlwind of political polarization has struck the U.S. since the Twin Towers fell five years ago today, ushering in a new idea of impassioned public debate on issues from terrorism to wiretapping.
And, as a democracy, this discourse, however impassioned, is entirely healthy and appropriate.
But since before the dust settled over lower Manhattan, those in power have tragically and inappropriately capitalized on America's emotion over the attacks to advance their own political ends in these debates.
This is nothing new.
Yet the impending firestorm over "The Path to 9/11," an ABC docudrama miniseries about the Clinton administration's role in the events leading up to the attacks, is threatening to become the next, and possibly most squalid, example of this disturbing trend.
While enough time has passed to allow for films like "World Trade Center" and "United 93" - which have been praised for their accurate and apolitical portrayals of the courageous men and women who died in the attacks - they still tread very gingerly around the very fresh scars still on the nation's psyche.
The ABC miniseries premieres as this paper goes to press, with the second installment airing this evening. It has been dripping with controversy for its tightly guarded storyline which allegedly mixes fact and fiction into a controversial brew.
A number of high-ranking Clinton officials, including Madeline Albright, Samuel Berger and Bill Clinton himself, objected to the content they saw, particularly concerned that the public may conflate fiction and fact.
ABC, which has kept the storyline strictly under wraps and has continued edits late into the production process, has argued that the criticism is premature.
"The Path to 9/11" is certainly not the first historical tragedy used as the backdrop for a fictitious plot. Yet films like "Pearl Harbor" and "Saving Private Ryan" were far more removed from their respective carnage and stood clear of making obvious political critiques.
ABC is free to broadcast content of their choice and Clinton officials are free to fret about their legacies. But the five-year anniversary of this atrocity is the absolutely last time anyone should start a newly embittered political rigmarole.
Clearly many things went wrong in the years leading up to Sept. 11. There are fingers that will be, and should be, pointed.
Yet in all of the finger-pointing that will likely occur in the fallout of the broadcast, they will be pointing away from what should be the focus of today: genuine respect and commemoration of the innocents who lost their lives in the tragedy.
ABC, but also the Clinton officials, are walking a dangerous line by fueling the hoopla over the broadcast. Public discourse - even the edgy stuff - about the tragedy is crucial, but any exploitation of it is repugnant.
And Sept. 11, 2006, could not be a worse time for it to happen.
Perhaps the work will initiate a more productive discussion of the attacks in the future, but for now, it is arguably the worst memorial yet.
