Another Bush scandal, another monstrous failure on the part of our media.
First, the NYT buried the story of Clarke's revelations with a baltantly biased Judith Miller hack job tucked away on the bottom of an inside page. Just now, the Times posted its afternoon report on the White House reaction. Yup, it's all he said/she said. No effort whatsoever to show that Clarke has a long paper trail and multiple corroborating witnesses to support his claims. No acknowledgment that the White House has no actual evidence to support its claims.
And over on CNN, the home page has two, count 'em two, articles about the poor, poor White House defending itself, one about Condi slamming Clark and another headlined "Bush defended". Cuz, you know, one article about the White House's propaganda campaign just wouldn't be enough!
Thank God, on the other hand, for
Barton Gellman and the WaPo editors, who saw fit to put this on the front page above the fold. And my favorite Gellman comment came in one of those
live chats he conducted, wherein he was asked what he thought of Condi Rice's rebuttal in the Post. Quoth Gellman: "I have not seen a significant factual challenge to the content of Clarke's book." Thank you!