It really fascinates me the way the mainstream press continues to serve as flack for Richard Clarke. Despite the fact that his self-serving appearances, statements, interviews and the release of a book the day before his testimony (Can you imagine what a judge would do to a trial-witness who released a book the days before they were to appear on the stand? It would jeopardize their entire testimony.) have done more to damage and politicize an already political panel, and the fact that none of it seems to have affected the way the public views the President, to say nothing of the blogosphere debunkings, the press just can't let it go. They stick to their position like a mongoose with its teeth locked on the neck of a pit-viper. Clarke is this month's imminent threat, its sixteen words, its Plame affair (who?). Sorry for the mongoose, this viper will soon be going "poof" like all the rest.

Framework of Clarke's Book Is Bolstered (washingtonpost.com)

But that's just the point isn't it? The entire Clarke splash isn't based on broad outlines, it's based on sensationalized shifts of emphasis. When you get down the the substance, there is no "there" there. It's about judgement calls, re-casting of fact with a dose of 20-20 hindsite and a career bureaucrat with a bruised ego and an opportunity to enjoy the mother of all self-importance trips.