from today's New York Post, flagship of the Murdoch media empire, a group of survivors of people killed in the 9/11 attacks have this to say about Mr. Clarke:

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was an overwhelming outpouring of support from all corners of America. New Yorkers, non-New Yorkers, Democrats, Republicans - none of that mattered. We were all joined together as a country to share our grief over what the terrorists did to America that day.

Of course, even then, a small number of individuals tried to take advantage of the situation and emotions exposed by 9/11, from looters of shops destroyed in the attack to those who filed bogus insurance claims. We realized then that the likelihood of exploitation would only increase as the distance of time began to separate us from that horrible day.

It was very disturbing, then, to learn that Mr. Clarke would be releasing his book immediately before his scheduled public testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

We are well aware that the friends and family members of those killed in 9/11 do not speak with a single voice on all issues. Nonetheless, the notion of profiteering from anything associated with 9/11 is particularly offensive to all of us.

We find Mr. Clarke's actions all the more offensive especially considering the fact that there was always a high possibility that the 9/11 Commission could be used for political gain, especially now, with the presidential election less than eight months away.

Of course, the book was submitted to the White House three months earlier, and the release date was determined on their clearance, but whatever.

At any rate, if you are unfamiliar with the New York Post, it is Rupert Murdoch's pet vanity project. It loses tons of money, but it keeps going because Mr. Murdoch wants a platform for his political views.

Mr. Murdoch also owns a news channel, which is managed by a gentleman named Brit Hume, who also oversees their Washington coverage.

Mr. Hume, as you may have seen in the story I linked to yesterday at atrios, was present at the White House Correspondents dinner, where Mr. Bush made what turned out to be controversial jokes about the lack of credibility of the evidence the White House supplied to Congress to get them to vote for his war. Some of the families of dead soldiers did not find that as amusing as the Washington correspondents apparently did.

This is what Mr. Hume had to say about that controversy:

Well, we have a society in which one of the greatest things you can do is a platform (ph) to see victim status, and one of the qualifications for that is that you have these exquisitely tender feelings about things and sensibilities which are easily offended.

And in America today, if your sensibilities are offended by something that has happened, you get an enormous amount of credibility and are taken very seriously.

My own view of this is, the president's there poking fun at himself over what goes down, I think, as one of his failures. And I thought it was a good-natured performance, and it made him look good only in the sense that it showed he could poke fun at himself. But he certainly doesn't disguise the record on weapons of mass destruction.

And you have to feel like saying to people, "Just get over it."

That said, I am somewhat confused. Precisely what standing do the folks who signed their names to this editorial have to comment on whatever choices Mr. Clarke has made after leaving the government?

I would have said that they had the right to say that they were offended by the tragic and ultimately pointless deaths of their loved ones being used by a political figure to burnish his own image and support political goals they don't agree with.

Clearly this is not the position of the Murdoch empire on this issue. The considered news judgment of at least one rather large section of the Murdoch empire is that these people are taking partisan advantage of a cultural weakness for the cult of victimization to blackmail public figures they oppose into not saying anything they disapprove of.

In fact, the largest segment of the Murdoch empire is of the opinion that dead is dead, and these people should just get over it..

Que vai?