So by now everyone knows that Condi Rice testified before the September 11th committee, right? Good. Personally, I'm of the mind that Bush and Co. were stringing the Donks along, making them whine and seeth as much as possible before finally saying "Fine, have it your way". And then they bring out the nail-studded cluebat and beat the snot out of Clarke, Kerry, and the rest of the foaming-at-the-mouth Donks. But that's only my opinion.
Anyways, what I bet that most people didn't know (and I sure didn't) is that Clarke himself refused to testify in 1999, and used the same reasoning that Condi Rice was giving recently! I don't know how long that link will be active, so I'll cut and paste a few paragraphs from the Congressional Record.
The congressional record; Senator Bennett:
Before the committee comes to order, I have some information to share with you which I'm sure will cause some consternation and disappointment.
We were scheduled -- at the beginning of this gathering we agreed not to call that portion of it a hearing, to have a briefing from Mr. Richard Clarke. And many of you have been notified that he would be here and as recently as yesterday afternoon when I was with him, we were looking forward to his appearance and he was sharing with me some of the areas that he planned to discuss while he was here. Mr. Clarke, as many of you know, is the national coordinator for security and infrastructure protection and counterterrorism on the National Security Council.
Last night, into the evening, we were notified that the legal staff of the National Security Council had determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to appear. I have just spoken to him on the telephone. The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress. They can perform briefings, but they are not to give testimony. And that in response to that rule, Mr. Clarke will not be coming.
He apologized to me for their failure to tell us that in a way that would have prevented our putting out the press notice in advance. I do not, in any sense, attribute any improper motives to Mr. Clarke. We had understood that the briefing could be held as long as there was no record made of it so that it would not be part of the formal hearing. And we were prepared to receive his briefing with the court recorder being instructed not to make any record of it and that that would comply with the rule.
As I say, last evening I received a call at home after the Senate had adjourned telling me that that arrangement would not be acceptable to the legal staff at the National Security Council and that Mr. Clarke, therefore, would not be here.
There shouldn't be any doubt that Richard Clarke is a lying fucknozzle, who's opportunistic and partisan cheap-shots should be disregarded at first notice. This guy is scum. Hat tip to Instapundit.