[devolve]

If Clarke goes in front of a current committee and swears his book statements he is now repeating before the committee are true yet his 2002 Congressional hearing testimony is not true then Clarke is guilty of deliberate and wilful perjurous testimony before Congress.

Clarke cannot have it both ways and as he is now also a media consultant while testifying he is in direct conflict of interest and actually getting financial benefits for testifying.

Lets have Sean Hannity go testify as a terrorism expert while working for ABC and FNC.

Same deal Lucille!

Several things are true about Richard Clarke:

He is yellow about military action.

He lies with deliberate gay abandon.

He gets paid by all sides at once.

Viacom, Simon & Shyster, CBS, 60 Minutes, ABC, and whoever is possibly paying his "expenses" while he shills for John Kerry while working for ABC,

He is a whore for any buck lying in an alley.

He is a lifelong Republican, just like Sarah Brady and Carolyn McCarthy are.

He is in deep stuff.

And it will get much deeper fast.

[piasa]

If he's a lifelong republican how come his only political donations are to Democrats?

[jacquej]

A nagging worry is going through my mind this morning, and haven't had my coffee yet.

What does Clarke becoming an ABC consultant do for his "legal" status? Can he now claim some kind of protection because of it, like refusing to disclose sources, etc?

We are in for a rough ride, friends. Better buckle up.

[MeekOneGOP]