Would Sen. Frist Like to Explain This?

Catching up on some reading, I see that Salon's Joe Conason has noted how a newly declassified briefing transcript clears Richard Clarke of the de facto perjury charge made by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist in the aftermath of Clarke's testimony before the 9-11 Commission.

Yes, someone took the time to write about this instead of the basketball fight. Hard to believe, isn't it? Conason reports:

Short memories confer immunity on politicians, who are rarely accountable for the opportunistic, irresponsible or dishonest remarks they so often utter. In Washington's fetid culture of personal destruction, the powerful and privileged can trash an adversary's reputation without concern that the truth will embarrass them when it emerges months or years later. Consider the case of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

Last March, Frist rose on the Senate floor to demonstrate his fealty to the White House by attacking Richard Clarke in the ugliest and most personal terms. Seeking to discredit the former counter-terrorism chief after his stunning appearance before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Frist essentially accused the former counter-terrorism chief of committing perjury.

But now we know who was telling the truth and who wasn't, thanks to the release of a newly declassified document. That document is the transcript of Clarke's testimony before a closed, joint congressional hearing in June 2002, when he discussed "the evolution of the terrorist threat" leading up to 9/11 with members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. While the declassified text contains lengthy redactions, it also shows conclusively that Frist slandered Clarke last spring.

Telling the truth? Not so much. And making an apology? I won't hold my breath.