Public Morality and Candor

Richard Clarke's experience within the political realm while he was the chief counterterrorism official for George Bush illuminates a great deal on public morality. I choose not to tackle the issue of whether or not Clarke's deception was justified. I am going to rather focus on public standards and also the individual level of the case. Why was Clarke subjected to this difficult situation? What were the reasons behind his actions? How does the public view this type of behavior?
This case is an issue of public morality. Richard Clarke was in a dilemma that many public officials are subjected to frequently. In order to perform his job the way his boss (GW) wanted him to, he was forced to put out a statement that was indisputably misleading and deceptive.
So, how do we respond to Thompson's statement "there is one standard of candor and morality for White House special assistants and another . . . for the rest of America?" First of all, I personally believe that this statement is quite accurate. The people do have a lower standard of morality and candor for White House special assistants, which can be expanded to public officials in general. The cause of this double standard lies within the perception that corruption is inherent in the system.
These standards are tried and true. However, the standards we hold for leaders is not reflective of true public morality. Clarke was deceptive did not come out forthright with his sentiments. We know this because of his later testimony on the issue once he did not hold that public office.It is clear that Clarke acted with true candor after he was not subjected to the position of the counterterrorism official. In hindsight, Clarke understood how he did not display true public morality within the White House. However, in the heat of the moment and when all eyes are watching, displaying true public morality may be overlooked in favor of avoiding political suicide.
Does this mean no leader can act in accordance to true public morality?