I can't help but think Clarke's response is: "Gee, thanks, Senator!"

If the Republicans take Kerry's advice, don't look for more Democrats to go out of their way to help his campaign.

This sounds like a clever political consultant's idea -- that if Bush prosecutes Clarke for perjury, he'll look like a heavy and the public will punish him; so he won't prosecute Clarke; so Kerry can then say the lack of prosecution buttresses Clarke's testimony.

Gotta pity Mr. Clarke on this one. The date stamped on his carton has just been reached.

Never underestimate the ability of the Left to go after their own once they've become a liability. Might as well betray them because the treatment won't be much different than if you had.

I wonder if Clarke will drop his Meet the Press appearance tomorrow morning?

Of course, the real root of the left's anger is that they just can't get any traction against the President. In 3 years, they've tried just about everything, and nothing helps. Too bad.

Actually, since Clarke lied to Congress it would be up to them to decide whether or not to bring perjury charges against him for giving two conflicting statements under oath. If the full transcript of the 2002 testimony is declassified and is found to be in conflict, Kerry, not Bush, will be the one having to make a decision on a perjury charge (another fun vote for the senator to cast this summer...)

John - that's the key point - whether the 2002 testimony conflicts with Clarke's current statements. Dems are saying it doesn't but you gotta believe the GOP wouldn't do this unless they had the goods on Clarke - trotting out the 2002 testimony if it agrees with Clarke's earlier statements would be even worse for Bush. Then again the GOP is the stupid party. Then again again this Kerry statement could mean the Dems know Clarke is toast and are starting to back away.

Clarke: "I thought Al-Qaeda was very dangerous, and then I thought so again. I thought the Clinton administration was not doing enough, and then I thought they were. I thought the Bush administration was doing enough, and then I didn't think they were".

Kerry should just love this guy.

I am surprised that history buffs such as OJ or Harry have not mentioned the similiarity of Richard Clarke's predicament and that of another American hero Col. Billy Mitchell.
http://www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part1/6_survival.html

h-man, I think Clarke would *like* to be considered another Billy Mitchell, but I see no evidence that he actually is one.

That is because the similarity is very limited.

Col Mitchell bucked entrenched military attitudes to prove what airpower could do, despite orders to the contrary.

Clarke is out to make political hay out of a situation no one could have prevented and, unfortunately, seems to have been a pre-requisite to fully engage terrorists.

"Clarke is out to make political hay out of a situation no one could have prevented and, unfortunately, seems to have been a pre-requisite to fully engage terrorists."

No One? Not Clinton, If he had hung tough in Mogdishu and punished the SOBs like he should have? If he had uprooted Al Qaeda after the first WTC bombing in 1993?

Don't get me wrong the R's made mistakes also. Particullarly GWHB, Cheney and Powell for not dealing with Iraq the first time.

Robert:

We had made negotiating with hijackers an element of national policy.

How do I know? As an airline pilot, I got trained one way before 9/11, and an entirely different way after.

As fundamentally decent people, Americans were constitutionally incapable of taking on board the evil religious fanaticists could get up to. That isn't the fault of Clinton, or Bush, or anyone.

Making Clarke's apology an empty, fatuous, exercise.