When Bill Frist replaced the disgraced Trent Lott as the Senate majority leader last year, it seemed obvious that he possessed scant qualifications for the post. He had served only a single term in the Senate, without any great distinction. He had never even voted before he decided to run for the Senate, backed by his family wealth, in 1994. But the Tennessee doctor met the criteria cherished by Karl Rove: He is telegenic, articulate and utterly subservient to the White House. He displayed all those qualities, and more, when he rose on the Senate floor to denounce Richard Clarke on March 26.In an ugly personal assault that must have thrilled the Fox News audience, Mr. Frist called Mr. Clarke’s critical new book, Against All Enemies, "an appalling act of profiteering." He mocked Mr. Clarke’s "theatrical apology" before the 9/11 commission for failing to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks. He distorted some of Mr. Clarke’s remarks and ignored the rest. He predictably echoed the White House sniping at Mr. Clarke’s credibility, and then he went still further.
The Senator strongly suggested that Mr. Clarke had committed perjury during his sharply critical testimony about anti-terror policy (or the lack thereof) in the Bush White House. "Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," he charged.
That was a cowardly statement for which, as we now know, Mr. Frist can provide no factual justification. It was cowardly because the Senator’s accusation was plain, and he even seemed to threaten an inquest that might lead to criminal charges—while adding an "if" to cover himself. It was cowardly, too, because Mr. Frist’s utterances on the floor are privileged against the slander lawsuit that he might otherwise be forced to defend.
