I sure hope that Bill Frist knew what he was doing with his dramatic attack on Dick Clarke as a potential perjurer on the Senate floor Friday. But I kind of doubt it. I would be shocked if there are contradictions so stark between Clarke’s prior testimony and his testimony last week that they can’t somehow be explained away (even if sometimes implausibly). The more I read about this case, the clearer it is that Clarke is relying mostly on, as he has put it “tenor and tone” to condemn the Bush administration. And you can’t get someone on a perjury rap based on tone. In any case, Clarke doesn’t seem the least bit dismayed by the possibility of his prior testimony being released.