If there were anything in Richard Clarke's classified congressional testimony from 2002 that could thoroughly discredit him, don't you think it would have been declassified as soon after his 60 Minutes interview as possible? Sorry, I don't buy this "We're looking into the declassification process" story -- after all, Bill Frist already seems to know what Clarke said, and what he's revealing ain't much, beyond praise for the Bushies, the same sort of praise for the "company" that any unhappy employee would feel compelled to offer in a work situation:
[Frist] quoted Clarke as telling Congress behind closed doors, "the administration actively sought to address the threat posed by al Qaeda during its first 11 months in office." --Reuters
[Frist] noted that Clarke's testimony in 2002 was "effusive in his praise for the actions of the Bush administration" and that Clarke had praised the administration's successes to reporters in 2002. --NewsMax
If there were a smoking gun in the testimony, we'd know. It would be declassified or someone in the right-wing media would have already gotten a leak -- bet on it. (Surely they know -- surely someone with a security clearance has picked over every word.)
Maybe I'm out on a limb here, but I think they've got nothing. They're just trying to keep the cloud of suspicion over Clarke through the weekend and the Sunday talk shows.
(Reuters link via Atrios and Hammerdown.)