It appears that the Republicans may be thinking about bringing perjury charges against Richard Clarke. Their theory is that Clarke's recent testimony is inconsistent with his previous testimony before Congress when he was still working for Bush. Several points may be noted about this matter:
1. To the extent that Clarke has testified inconsistently, it is important to determine which of his testimony was true and which was false. That is the only way to discover exactly what happened in the Bush Administration. One suspects, however, that the Republicans have something else in mind.
2. In a perjury prosecution, Clarke would be entitled to legal discovery so he can try to prove that he spoke truthfully. The last thing Bush wants, however, is to release information.
3. When Clarke testified previously, he was speaking for the Bush Administration, while now he is speaking for himself. One may presume that he is more likely to speak truthfully when speaking for himself. Thus, any falsehoods were in his previous testimony, and helped Bush. The Republicans are outraged, then, that Clarke might have "spun" in Bush's favor?
4. If the Republicans declassify only some of Clarke's previous testimony, one may presume that they are making available only the testimony that makes Clarke look bad. Thus, by implication, the rest of Clarke's previous testimony supports his recent testimony. Thus, the Republicans may just highlight the accuracy of most of the Clarke's recent testimony. On the other hand, if the Republicans declassify all of Clarke's previous testimony, much of that also should reinforce Clarke's recent testimony. Either way, the Republicans will confirm the accuracy of most of Clarke's recent testimony.
5. Most of the Republican attacks have been upon Clarke’s honesty and motivations -- ad hominem attacks, in other words. Few of the attacks have pointed out anything other than minor inconsistencies in Clarke's testimony.
6. This whole affair makes the Republicans look mighty desperate.
Comments