Centrisity

Krugman editorial

Paul Krugman, at the New York Times, touched on some of the Clarke bashing I talked about yesterday. A couple things that jumped out at me:

It's important, when you read the inevitable attempts to impugn the character of the latest whistle-blower, to realize just how risky it is to reveal awkward truths about the Bush administration. When Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress that postwar Iraq would require a large occupation force, that was the end of his military career. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV revealed that the 2003 State of the Union speech contained information known to be false, someone in the White House destroyed his wife's career by revealing that she was a C.I.A. operative. And we now know that Richard Foster, the Medicare system's chief actuary, was threatened with dismissal if he revealed to Congress the likely cost of the administration's prescription drug plan.

The latest insider to come forth, of course, is Richard Clarke

It takes more courage to speak against, then it does to just ride the wave. This week will be a long week for the GW administration. They can take their lumps and come clean, or continue the cat and mouse game. They can scratch their head all they want in trying to figure out why their once loyal aides are now doing a 180. But what they are really missing, is the reason, and Krugman points it out well:

So why did he (Clarke) write it? How about this: Maybe he just wanted the public to know the truth.