As it turns out, not everyone appreciated Mr. Clarke's eloquent testimony to the 9-11 Commission. Charles Krauthammer, whose Pulitzer Prize is more in the tradition of Walter Duranty's and Janet Cooke's, goes on the attack, denouncing Clarke's apology to the 9-11 victims as "phony", and then ridiculing those same families for claiming "special status" as victims.

Dr. Krauthammer's rationale, such as it is, is that since Clarke admitted that even if the Bushies had followed his advice, the 9-11 attacks still would have taken place, there was nothing that could have been done to prevent what happened. Everyone did there best, so no apology was in order. Besides the incredible defeatism of that conceit (no matter how hard we try, the terrorists will inevitably succeed), it also misses the point completely. Clarke was the anti-terrorism tsar. If he couldn't devise something to prevent 9-11 from taking place, and if the Bushies were clearly disinterested in the whole subject of non-state-supported terrorisms before 9-11 to have ignored Al Qaeda, the American people are owed an explanation why. Clarke gave them one, by taking accountability, showing them the respect that Krauthammer couldn't find in his heart to give.