Every step of the way, the GOP has been one step behind on Richard Clarke. That said, in a controversy that has made a lot of Republicans look awfully foolish, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) may have carved out a uniquely embarrassing place for himself on Friday.
Frist, relying heavily on a prepared text (from the White House, perhaps?), took to the Senate floor Friday afternoon with some pretty serious accusations.
Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath. In July 2002, in front of the Congressional Joint Inquiry on the September 11 attacks, Mr. Clarke testified under oath that the Administration actively sought to address the threat posed by al Qaeda during its first seven months in office.
Mr. President, it is one thing for Mr. Clarke to dissemble in front of the media. But if he lied under oath to the United States Congress it is a far more serious matter. As I mentioned, the intelligence committee is seeking to have Mr. Clarke’s previous testimony declassified so as to permit an examination of Mr. Clarke’s two different accounts. Loyalty to any Administration will be no defense if it is found that he has lied before Congress.
This isn’t just transparent political posturing, though it is certainly that. More importantly, this is the Senate Majority Leader, on the Senate floor, accusing a 30-year veteran of counterterrorism service of lying to Congress under oath, which is a felony.
It was one of the more startling examples of modern-day McCarthyism I’ve seen since Clinton’s impeachment. Frist didn’t literally say, “I have in my hands…”, but he didn’t have to. He insisted that there’s a classified document, hidden away, that effectively proves that Clarke is dishonest and should face punishment for a possible felony. We haven’t seen it, but we should take Frist’s word for it.
Frist must have the goods, right? Members of the Senate don’t just run around slandering government officials, accusing them of felonies without cause, right?
Funny story…
Just hours after his widely-publicized remarks, Frist backtracked — quickly. As MSNBC reported:
Frist later retreated from directly accusing Clarke of perjury, telling reporters that he personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies between Clarke’s two appearances.
That’s right, Frist hasn’t even seen the 2002 testimony that served as the foundation for his accusation that very afternoon. Someone handed him a statement, told him to slander a respected public official on the Senate floor, and Frist well along. If this happened outside of Congress, Clarke would be fully justified in suing Frist for such a reckless and irresponsible charge.
But that, fortunately, isn’t the end of it.
Richard Clarke has been asked, directly, about his classified 2002 testimony. Instead of acting like he has something to hide, Clarke has called the GOP’s bluff in a big way. He wants his entire six hours of testimony declassified, as well as Condi Rice’s testimony, his 1/25/02 strategy memo to Rice, the national security directive that Rice’s committee approved nine months later on September 4, and all of the memos and emails sent between his office and that of the NSA.
This is what the Republicans want, right? If we want to go on a declassifying binge to see Richard Clarke in context, then let’s get a really good look. Clarke says he has nothing to hide; how about his critics?
It now appears that Clarke was willing to call Frist’s bluff, but Frist will not respond in kind. You might think, in light of Clarke’s call for full disclosure and an open review of all the relevant information, Frist would be prepared to follow-up on the demands he felt so strongly about just three days ago.
After all, here’s Frist’s chance. He accused Clarke of perjury on Friday and now Clarke has extended an open invitation to Frist to back it up.
And yet, I’ve been watching all day to see if Frist has anything to do add to this discussion. So far, not a peep.
What’s the matter, Sen. Frist? Cat got your tongue?