CSPAN is more than a little educational. Sure, those who watch it at three in the morning are often ridiculed for being nerds and policy wonks, but amazing things happen on CSPAN that are not seen or reported widely or accurately in the mainstream slap-dash corporate press. I happened to be watching the night the Medicare legislation came to the House floor for a vote, and wondered why it took three hours as opposed to the usual fifteen minutes to record all of the votes. Turns out administration officials, who have no business on the House floor during debates or votes, were twisting arms and the compliant House leadership kept the vote open far longer than is normal.

Come to find out the budgetary numbers were cooked and a Medicare actuary threatened with reprisal should he give to Congress the actual figures, as he is required to do by law. A Republican House member due to leave office after his current term was similarly threatened that his son, preparing to run for his father's seat, would face stiff opposition from his own party if he refused to change his vote so the measure would pass.

But that isn't why I laud the educational and public service functions of CSPAN. I sing its praises this night because it provides context for events later portrayed in the media stripped of same. I speak specifically about the case of Richard Clarke, formerly Counter -Terrorism Coordinator for the Shrub Ministries. Clarke held the same position for Clinton, Shrub the Elderberry, and worked in the Reagan administration as well. (A full video of his appearance can be found at CSPAN. Look for "Sept. 11 Commission Hearing, Day 2, afternoon" and click on the link.)

What transpired in open testimony and what has appeared in the news media are two very different things. In the latter, Clarke is framed as a man of questionable intent, perhaps a "disgruntled former employee" as Paul O'Neill was characterized by the Shrubbites. He is cast as a guy just trying to sell a book, to be famous, get his fifteen minutes, as it were.

The Shrubsters ran around all day Tuesday and Wednesday refuting anything and everything this man said, is alleged to have said, and might utter some day in the far flung future. To call their shrill denials desperate is to be kind. He is said to have been out of the loop, misinformed, and a liar. That last comes from the central figure who has steadfastly refused to answer in public for her role in the September 11 attacks, Condoleeza "oil tanker" Rice. She has played it safe, lobbing spitballs at Clarke every chance she gets, but only in forums where hard follow up questions cannot be asked. Unlike Clarke, she was not under oath when making her comments.

Watching the entire period of Clarke's testimony revealed to me several things. He is a serious and thoughtful man in his professional capacity, well spoken, and willing to admit not having answers to some questions due to a lack of knowledge. He strikes me as a hawkish, cold warrior type of guy, advocating the aggressive use of military and covert options in the fight against terrorism. I disagree with some of his assumptions and probably all of his methods, but I took him to be truthful and consistent in his testimony.

And in a classy move, he opened his remarks with a public apology to the families who lost people on 9-11.

Contrast his hours in front of the committee with the hatchet job being done on him by the White House in the form of Rice, Cheney, Shrub, and Scott McLellan, the press secretary who has led the charge. To listen to these people, Clarke was incompetent, lazy, uninformed, out of the loop, and disloyal. That last one stings the most for this secrecy obsessed crowd, that a former official cuts the cord and speaks his mind in public.

The Shrubministeries even went so far as to release Clarke's resignation letter, then fed the wolves at Faux News a briefing Clarke gave, on background (which means unattributed and unquotable), at the express request (order) of his higher ups. That it does not exactly jibe with what appears in his book casts a bright lie on the routine practice of trotting out officials to "put a good face" on lousy policies or mistakes. That the Resident's minions would feed this directly to Faux ought to enrage reporters everywhere, for background briefings are essential to their daily jobs, and no one is likely to perform even this off the record task if the risk of being named is so high.

It is a truism, that he who doth protest, and all that. In this case, the big guns are out in a way they have not been for anyone else who has publicly questioned the Shrubberites and their policies. A tip of the hat to Clarke for taking the heat, even though he already knew what was in store for him.

And for those who ponder such things, let us consider:

Outing Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife, a CIA operative, then refusing to reveal who committed this crime.

Bashing Paul O'Neill, formerly Secretary Of The Treasury, for noting in his book that Iraq was in the cross hairs from the earliest days of the Shrubberites.

Intimidating and threatening at least two public servants and bending the rules to the breaking point in order to score a political victory in the Medicare legislation.

Refusing to allow key officials to testify in open session about the 9-11 attacks. In truth, what they could actually testify to in public is far less important than the mere act of doing so.

Manufacturing a war by intentionally lying about the nature and severity of the threat posed by Iraq. According to Clarke, this egregious action disrupted our declared war on terrorism.

The list literally goes on and on, and I contend that the viciousness of the Shrubberites is due in large part to their underlying belief that the American system of government, as described in our Constitution, is not a legitimate constraint upon their agenda to remake America into something it is not: a corporate dictatorship.