Some collected bits from around the web

"What we'll never know is how Clarke could say this. He probably assumed his 2002 background briefing would never pop up again. . . .

I was watching this week's hearing very carefully, but while Clarke might have reddened a shade or two when finally asked to square his two different versions of events, I can't be sure. He should have. At the very least, he should not have maintained under oath that his indictment of the Bush administration in his book and recent interviews are "consistent" with his past statements." - Diana West, "Which Clarke should you believe?"

"MR. RUSSERT: Is there any inconsistency between your sworn testimony before the September 11 Commission last week and two years ago before the congressional committee?

MR. CLARKE: No, there isn't. And I would welcome it being declassified, but not just a little line here or there. Let's declassify all six hours of my testimony.

MR. RUSSERT: You would request this morning that it all be declassified?

MR. CLARKE: And I want more declassified."
Meet the Press, March 28, 2004.

"The White House acknowledged Sunday that on the day after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush asked his top counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, to find out whether Iraq was involved.

Mr. Bush wanted to know "did Iraq have anything to do with this? Were they complicit in it?" Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, recounted in an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes."

Mr. Bush was not trying to intimidate anyone to "produce information," she said. Rather, given the United States' "actively hostile relationship" with Iraq at the time, he was asking Mr. Clarke "a perfectly logical question," Ms. Rice said.

The conversation — which the White House suggested last week had never taken place — centers on perhaps the most volatile charge Mr. Clarke has made public in recent days: that the Bush White House became fixated on Iraq and Saddam Hussein at the expense of focusing on Al Qaeda." Eric Lichtbrau, New York Times.

A couple of observations. First of all the White House and their allies in the Conservative Media need to eventually respond to the substance of Mr. Clarke's testimony, rather than simply trying to discredit him sight unseen. This current strategy of portraying him as an unscrupulous careerist just doesn't seem to be working for them. Suggesting that he's really a Democrat is also a meaningless accusation, unless the White House has a different set of stories to tell. But as the New York Times story suggests, they might not.

Second, Condoleezza Rice is really taking the bullet for President Bush in this story, as it's clear that the current "story" is Clark versus Rice. That picture of her angry face is showing up everywhere; and it doesn't compare favorably to Richard Clarke's more calm demeanor.