Mr. Clarke's Admission

That's the title of an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal ($) that quotes Richard Clarke's testimony last week in which he admits that following his recommendations from January 26, 2001, forward would not have prevented the atrocities of 9-11.

"Mr. [Slade] Gorton: 'Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25 of 2001 . . . including aid to the Northern Alliance which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted, say, on January 26, 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?'"

"Mr. Clarke: 'No.'"

As the Journal notes, this revelation received virtually no press coverage last week. Indeed, the coverage of the Clarke testimony is notable for the press's determination NOT to dig into his background. When Republicans and the conservative press did the media's job for them, they were charged with attempting to undermine Clarke's credibility -- as if they were creating new Clarke transcripts ex nihilo rather than simply researching his extensive paper trail and reporting their findings. Legally, ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it; willful ignorance in journalism is usually called bias, if not plain lying.