Re Jonah’s piece: It seems to me that motives are, in fact, critical to examine as an explanation for a complete reversal of position, as in the case with Richard Clarke. While it is true that the Clinton defenders attacked Paula Jones and Linda Tripp for peddling book deals, neither of them actually secured such a deal at the time. Furthermore, both were subjected to the kind of scrutiny Clarke will evade, i.e., in Jones’s case, the examination that comes with a civil lawsuit, and in Tripp’s case, the examination that comes with a criminal investigation. Final point: Jones and Tripp never changed their stories, either. Clarke’s situation is completely different. And his motivations are, in my view, pertinent.