From the Washington Times: Inside Politics By Greg Pierce Clarke's admission "If President Bush had followed every last letter of Richard Clarke's recommendations starting Inauguration Day, it still would not have prevented 9/11," the Wall Street Journal says. "How do we know this? Richard Clarke says so," the newspaper said in an editorial. "Here's how the disgruntled National Security Council adviser put it last week in an exchange with Slade Gorton, a member of the 9/11 Commission and former Washington senator: "Mr. 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 2Â½ years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted, say, on January 26, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11? "Mr. Clarke: 'No.' "Mr. Gorton: 'It just would have allowed our response after 9/11 to be perhaps a little bit faster?' "Mr. Clarke: 'Well, the response would have begun before 9/11.' "Mr. Gorton: 'But â yes, but we weren't going to â there was no recommendation on your part or anyone else's part that we declare war and attempt to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11?' "Mr. Clarke: 'That's right.' "This startling exchange got almost no media attention last week. Mr. Clarke has rocketed to national fame over the past 10 days by alleging the Bush administration was negligently inattentive to the al Qaeda threat. He took it upon himself to 'apologize' on behalf of 'your government' to the families of 9/11 victims, as if there had been policy options on the table â perhaps offered by him â that might have prevented their deaths. "But when pressed on that point under oath, Mr. Clarke was forced to concede that the impression he'd created, the very reason anyone was paying any attention to him, was false. As long as Mr. Clarke is in the apology business, can we have one for wasting a week of the administration's precious antiterror time?" **** Let me see if I got this right? After nonstop media appearances and theatrical testimony, including his infamous "apology", Clarke admits that if Bush had immediately adopted every single one of his proposals, including ones that the Clinton administration never adopted, that it would not have stopped 9/11? Did I miss something or was that not the whole point of all his finger-pointing and attacks on Rice and Bush? And what was with the apology? Wasn't that intended to send a message that the administration bore responsibility for 9/11? Responsibility that he, Clarke, had tried manfully toget them to shoulder, only to be cast aside ungratefully by the confused black woman? So it turns out that 60 Minutes and Larry King were just part of a big infomercial for his book. That he was exactly what Mav and I said he was, a real POS trying to cash in on 9/11 and settle a few grudges along the way. That his real complaint had nothing to do with 9/11, but was over the POLICY choice of invading Iraq, something that was way "above his pay grade."