I made the mistake of lifting up the rock and taking a peek at what the Bush-Cult Blogosphere thinks of the Clarke brouhaha. Bleah.

Some statements of the obvious:

• Why do some people get so outraged by apparent inconsistencies between Clarke's words now and in 2002 and yet overlook much bigger inconsistencies (or outright stupidities) in Bush administration statements? (I'm thinking specifically of Rice's we-never-imagined-anyone-would-use-planes star turn on MTP and Bush's shifting rhetoric on bin Laden - dead-or-alive vs. not-a-priority).
  
  
• When wondering which of Clarke's statements you should take more seriously, here's a hint: this most recent batch was made under oath.
  
  
• But Majority Leader Frist said he contradicted his sworn testimony in 2002, also under oath! Or at least, he might have! Sen. Frist says he doesn't know, really. He hadn't actually reviewed the testimony when he made his accusation. But he might have, so we should all assume he did!
  
  P.S. No other Bush people have ever shaded the truth in background briefings, ever.
  
  P.P.S. Release the background-briefing info on Valerie who?
  
  
• Does it not strike any of them as odd that Dr. Rice is unwilling to address Clarke's sworn testimony while under oath, but would be willing to come in if she doesn't have to take an oath? I really don't care all that much if she does it in public or not, but I see no excuse for not testifying privately under oath beyond the obvious interpretation: she wants to lie.
  
  
• BUT HE WROTE A BOOK! HE'S MAKING MONEY! Goodness me, I'm certain no theocons or conservatarians have ever done anything they feel is important or patriotic while also accepting money. And certainly they don't try to sell books.
  
  Here's a thought: maybe he has so much to say that it won't fit in a single interview or article. What do you want him to do, start a weblog and not sell ads on it? Are books unacceptable forms of discourse now? I don't quite get this one.
  
  
• A question for Mr. Frist: you say Mr. Clarke should not be the one to apologize to the families for failing them. So who should? Who do you hold responsible for the intelligence and strategic failures?
  
  Why is it bad when someone who was there takes personal responsibility? I would think we'd be better off as a country with more people accepting responsibility, not fewer.
  
  The bigger man admits when he's failed or been wrong. Clarke sure looks like the bigger man here.