[pushforbush]

Yes, Porter Goss has the strength to go after Clark for perjury. Remember Martha Stewart's perjury conviction for lying to federal investigators???----well Clark could go down for lying to Goss's committee. Goss has the classified testimony of what Clark said. My guess is that Clark doesn't have a clue what exactly he said then, and
Goss has the classifed transcripts. I also think that Clark never dreamed that anyone would ever catch him in all his contradictions, since he is borderline psychotic in imagining his own importance in the universe.

Clark now has to hire a lawyer right away, and sweat out whether there is a perjury conviction coming. Any decent lawyer will tell Clark to shut up immediately and to make no further public statements of any type. We'll see if Clark takes his lawyer's advice. Remember Martha didn't, and that led to her downfall.

[Utah Girl]

That's what I don't get. Didn't Clarke realize he would get caught with his statements being so contradictory? And to tell two different stories to the same people on the same commission. meglomaniac indeed.

[cyncooper]

Here is what the article says:

Goss suggested that the statements from 2002 more accurately reflected the substance of what Clarke had told the Intelligence panel during that time.

You say:

well Clark could go down for lying to Goss's committee.

My guess is Clarke is not going down for lying to Goss's committee. Goss is saying he told us one thing then and now he's saying something else. Which is true? So far documentation supports Clarke utterances from before the book came out.

Of course, I don't know all of what he said back then. I do know on the Senate side Chris Shays was frustrated with Clarke's cooperation and attitude as far back as July 2000, so perhaps he was less than forthcoming. But my point is the book and yesterday's testimony are the areas where Clarke can be proven as lying, so that's where I think this would head.