Ever Heard of Kenneth Starr? Or Linda Tripp?

The mainstream press seems to be very sympathetic to Richard Clarke. Gee. Isn't it awful that the awesome power f the presidency has been turned on the "whistle blower?"

Note these lines from the Washington Post today.

"Bush's aides unleashed a two-pronged strategy that called for preemptive strikes on Clarke before most people could have seen his book, coupled with saturation media appearances by administration aides. They questioned the truthfulness of Clarke's claims, his competence as an employee, the motives behind the book's timing, and even the sincerity of the pleasantries in his resignation letter and farewell photo session with Bush.

The barrage was unusual for a White House that typically tries to ignore its critics, and it was driven by White House calculations that Clarke would appear credible to average viewers. Bush's advisers are concerned that Clarke's assertions are capable of inflicting political damage on a president who is staking his claim for reelection in large measure on his fight against terrorism."

One has to read halfway down through the article before the Washington Post reports that Clarke might have a problem as his book sharply contrasts with a briefing he gave the press in 2002. But, even then, the empahasis is not on Clarke's contradiction, but rather on how low it was for the administration to allow Fox News to reveal the name of the "unnamed" senior official who gave the briefing.

In truth, the Bush Administration is simply using Richard Clarke's own words against him. When a person says one thing one day and something contradictory the next, both statements cannot be true. At least one is a lie.

Not even Time magazine can choke down Clarke's obvious fabrications and exagerrations. And they didn't even have to go back to his background briefing with a number of news agencies in August of 2002.

During the Clinton years, the administration's thugs would accuse any critic of planning to enrich themselves by writing a book. Anybody seen Linda Tripp's book? How about Kathleen Willey or Ken Starr's book?

Richard Clarke already has his book and his publisher moved up the publication so that it coincided with the 9/11 hearings. This is so obviously cynical that it even Dan Rather should be able to figure it out for himself.