The West Wing of Orthanc (Frist, Clarke, character)
Last night Josh Marshall recorded his thoughts on Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist’s accusations against Richard Clarke on the Senate floor, whereon Frist accused Clarke, as Josh puts it, “of being a perjuror and a profiteer on the blood of 9/11.”
I’ve watched these proceedings rather closely, and while my political savvy is almost infinitesimal next to Josh’s, I fancy I do know how to read body language somewhat, and based on what I’ve seen Sen. Frist’s accusations don’t seem likely.
I had already read that some Republicans are attempting to declassify Clarke’s July 2002 testimony in an attempt to discredit Clarke’s present testimony, and noted Sen. Frist’s participation. Sen. Frist is, of course, a Tennessee senator and therefore mine. As I think he’s making a serious mistake (and putting Tennessee’s honor in further jeopardy) I felt impelled to write him today via Congress.org:
Dear Sen. Frist:
I just read your comments as published in the New York Times, Frist’s Comments on Clarke’s Testimony, and [in AP story] GOP moves to declassify Clarke testimony.
I’ve been following both Mr. Clarke’s testimony and the Administration’s response to it very closely.
Here’s what the situation looks like to me:
Mr. Clarke comes across as calm, collected, intelligent, honest, responsible. Is he telling the truth? Obviously I don’t know first hand, but everything in my experience about assessing a person’s veracity through words and body language tells me he is telling the truth.
Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. McClellan, and Dr. Rice, OTOH, are in aggressive character-smear mode, unwilling to testify under oath, unwilling to accept responsibility, unable to maintain eye contact, fidgeting, and most important — not addressing the charges. My assessment of them is they’re not telling the truth.
In the NYT you’re reported as saying, “The only common denominator throughout these 10 years of unanswered attacks was Mr. Clarke himself, a consideration that is clearly driving his effort to point fingers and shift blame.”
This is important: Mr. Clarke does not appear to be shifting blame at all; he appears to be accepting it. The Bush team OTOH appears to be pointing fingers and shifting blame every which way.
The conclusion I draw is that the Administration is hiding something, and is willing to assassinate the character of anyone in a position to reveal it.
Finally, your push to declassify Mr. Clarke’s earlier Congressional testimony implies to me that you’re prepared to risk compromising national security by opening classified transcripts whose content you’ve said is unknown to you. If your intent is otherwise, it’s not coming across as reported.
Sir, I believe your reputation and indeed, legacy, is on the line. Unless you reconsider, I believe your good name is about to be irrevocably linked to a sinking ship that may be disdained for generations.
Thank you.
After sending this message I read Josh’s observation earlier yesterday that
What this is about isn’t Condi Rice or Richard Clarke or even George W. Bush. It’s about what happened — finding out what happened.
One side wants to find out; the other doesn’t. This whole story turns on that simple fact. Why else try to destroy Clarke unless what he has to say is profoundly damaging? Liars are usually easily discredited; it’s the truth-tellers who need to be destroyed.
Josh concludes, as has Bob Graham, former Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence and Co-Chair of the Joint Committee before whom Clarke’s July 2002 testimony was given,
Why guess? Let’s find out. Release all his testimony. All of it.
I find myself persuaded that’s a good idea, and hence would alter my next-to-last paragraph to Sen. Frist if I hadn’t already sent it.
2004-03-28 update: Clarke himself recommends releasing his earlier testimony, along with all his email and memos. I’m not sure the Republican smear machine knows how to attack people who have, apparently, nothing to hide.
Is it too much to ask that government leaders display some character, openness, and restraint? Richard Clarke showed me this week what that looks like. While I have no preexisting reason to support him one way or the other, or even to agree with his hawkish views, I’m thankful to him for reminding me that character in government is still possible, even unto apologizing for the government’s mistakes and asking forgiveness.
And I will never be satisfied with anything less. I think the time of accepting lowered expectations is drawing to a close. We can do so much better than this.
a few hours later …
Whereas I was thinking Sen. Frist’s mistake lay in smearing a decent man, risking national security, and risking his own legacy, Stirling sees his mistake more expansively: that Frist has accidentally opened the floodgates of scandal in the direction of deluging Bush’s Isengard (okay, Stirling says “floodgates,” I picture LotR):
When Senator Bill Frist called for declassification of Clarke’s earlier testimony, [alleging], or at least implying, that perjury could be in the offing — he opened the floodgates. …
By trying to attack Clarke for having been a loyal soldier of the Executive earlier — [Frist] tells every functionary in that Executive Branch that they are marked for destruction — personal political destruction — should they waver. And that their previous service would be used against them. Anything you say in support of Bush can, and will, be used against you by Bush.
Wow, fascinating analysis.
2004-04-02 update: Yes, I’m veiling what I really think about Sen. Frist in a thick bubblewrap of Southern politeness, but John Nichols isn’t. John kicks ass and takes names in yesterday’s Frists of Fury.

![[Etymotic ER-4P earphones]](/mt/archives/photos/er4whiteupright_119x154.jpg)
![[Self-casted earmolds]](/mt/archives/photos/earmolds-tn_138x180.jpg)
![[Custom earset with ER-4P]](/mt/archives/photos/final-earset-tn_180x117.jpg)
