Mugged by Viacom

"Which is the real Clarke"? we asked when Richard Clarke testified at 9/11 hearings in March. "The one who staunchly defended the Bush administration's al Queda policies two years ago or the one who says GW 'ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something?'"

"We were mugged by Viacom," Republican 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman tells Rich Lowry in a National Review interview, referring to the owner of the publisher of Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, and the owner of CBS, which broadcast a long, loving segment devoted to Clarke just prior to the release of his book:

Because they changed the release date of the book and geared up "60 Minutes" to launch his book to time them with his testimony, and they edited his book to take out all of the criticisms of Clinton from his [original private] testimony. Because they wanted to make it a jihad against Bush."

Lehman says that Clarke's original testimony included "a searing indictment of some Clinton officials and Clinton policies." That was the Clarke, evenhanded in his criticisms of both the Bush and Clinton administrations, who Lehman and other Republican commissioners expected to show up at the public hearings. It was a surprise "that he would come out against Bush that way." Republicans were taken aback: "It caught us flat-footed, but not the Democrats."

Clarke's performance poisoned the public hearings, leading to weeks of a partisan slugfest. Lehman says Republican commissioners felt they had to fight back, adding to the partisan atmosphere . . . "We were hijacked by a combination of Viacom and the Kerry campaign in the handling of Clarke's testimony."

At the time, we noted that Clarke's body language made the little hairs on the back of our neck bristle, and the obsequious stroking of their star witness by partisan commissioners Bob Kerrey and Richard Ben-Veniste made our toes curl. In our blog posts we kept asking the rhetorical question, "Why don't people pick up on the body language?" and cheered when Lehman stared Clarke in the eye and told him "You've got a real credibility problem." Lowry concludes in today's interview:

Lehman is proud of the unanimous final report released today. It reflects the more sober, behind-the-scenes work of the commission: "By and large it was nothing like you saw in those public hearings."

Yes, but. The hysteria and name-calling and grandstanding of those public hearings did serious damage to the president's credibility among those who "get their news" from the mainstream media. Is the 9/11 commission's sober assessment too little too late?