Dems -- be careful what you wish for
by JohnHuang2
Media experts and political strategists say the White House, by "attacking" Dick Clarke's "credibility," may have only further intensified the firestorm sparked by the former Clinton hold-over, inadvertently "keeping the controversy firmly in the headlines into a second week," Reuters reports. (Yes, the liberal media was just dying to get off this story).
"The administration's attempts to discredit Clarke have backfired," Reuters quotes Chicago University political scientist, Robert Pape, as saying. "They have merely given the story legs and hurt the administration." (James Carville was horrified that a President would defend himself and attack an accuser's credibility).
Indeed, a new poll shows the effort to discredit Clarke has backfired so badly, Bush has backfired himself into a lead over rival John Kerry, 51%-47. That's according to the latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll, released Monday night. The administration, by merely giving the story legs, has hurt itself into a 7 percentage-point gain, evaporating Kerry's 6-point pre-ClarkeGate lead over Bush.
"The Bush administration and its allies have certainly not helped the story go away," Reuters quotes Republican media relations strategist, Howard Opinsky, as saying. Instead, Bush "adopted the risky strategy of trying to refute (Clarke's) charges."
Rather than doing the sensible thing and acting like a doormat, Bush, by refuting Clarke's charges, has Risky Strategied himself into a 16-point net-favorable rating, 57%- 41. But, with Clarke's testimony rocking Capitol Hill last week, voters grew increasingly skeptical of . . . Kerry, who now trails Bush, 52%-41, on who they trust more on decisions of sending troops to war. By not helping this story go away, Bush and his allies have eroded trust in Kerry on questions of war and peace, knocking Kerry down to 45%. Yet, charges that Bush has done a horrible job in the War on Terror have taken an even heavier toll on Kerry, with 58% saying they approve of Bush's leadership in the War on Terror. Clarke's damaging testimony has damaged Kerry into a double-digit deficit versus Bush on leadership.
(Kerry to mid-level campaign aide: I want you to find out whether Bush's ads did this. AIDE: But Sen. Kerry, Clarke's testimony did this. KERRY: I know, I know, but see if Bush's ads were involved. Just look.)
Clarke's appearance before the 10-member commission, televised live, led observers to proclaim the collapse of the Bush Presidency. The collapse was canceled hours later. The commission is probing the war in Iraq, oops, I mean 9/11. (What really happen on 9/11? Did Irishmen hijack those planes?) With Condoleeza Rice set to testify, the Kerry camp, battered by Clarke's testimony, braces for even more heavy damage as the War on Terror becomes the central election issue, rather than how very qualified Kerry is to be president because he won in Iowa and New Hampshire. And served in Vietnam. (If a Democrat is saddled with colossal weakness on national security, a quick fix is probably not to make national security the central election issue). Bush is running on his record of fighting terror. Kerry is running on his record of fighting Bush. And serving in Vietnam.
In his just-released book, Against All Enemies, Clarke alleges the reason 9/11 happened is because Bush failed to hold enough meetings with Clarke in the run-up to 9/11 and that this proves Bush was inattentive to the threat from al-Qaeda. (Bush ignored Clarke? Just who does Bush think he is -- Clarke or somethin'?) The book charges Bush completely underestimated Clarke. Clarke further notes that had Bush fully implemented Clarke's recommendations in advance of 9/11, 9/11 would happen anyway because the plot to hijack planes was well underway even before Bush was sworn in. Indeed, the al-Qaeda hijackers had snuck across U.S. borders on Clinton's watch. Clarke says this shows Clinton more attentive to the threat from al-Qaeda than Bush. While Bush was dithering around as Governor of Texas, Clinton labored long and hard preparing a plan of action for Bush to fight al-Qaeda, says Clarke. Whereas Bush was slow to act on the threat from al-Qaeda, Clinton wasted no time in holding more meetings with Clarke. (Don't get me wrong -- Clarke ain't all bad. In fact, it may surprise you folks to hear me say this, but Clarke can be quite magnanimous, even giving Bush credit for Clinton's most difficult feats . . . you know, like screwing up the Mideast "peace" process, Somalia, Haiti, allowing al-Qaeda to flourish, etc. Great guy!)
Not only should Bush have paid more attention to the al-Qaeda threat on Clinton's watch, Clarke accuses Bush of expanding the global War on Terror beyond Afghanistan, to countries like Iraq, as if this was some sort of global War on Terror. (The Taliban and Saddam -- toppled. Studies show Bush to have been the direct cause). Clarke's critique is premised upon two major points: 1) The Iraq war stinks, and 2) I think the Iraq war stinks. With the world less safe now that Saddam's gone and with Libya disarming, Clarke says the War on Terror has been a total disaster and Iraq is the reason. (Spain's Zapatero also calls Iraq a total disaster, vowing to pull all 120 Spanish troops -- a move which should fix the problem). Appearing on Meet The Press Sunday, Clarke said the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has only fueled al-Qaeda anger at us. (9/11 attacks were just a warning by al-Qaeda: Yo, Bush -- don't invade Iraq!) Invading a Muslim country like Iraq pre-emptively has only provoked al-Qaeda. Nations participating in the U.S. invasion have been hit by al-Qaeda. (Turkey and Morocco and Saudi Arabia were shocked to learn they had invaded Iraq). To avoid making al-Qaeda mad, Clarke says Bush instead should have pre-emptively invaded Afghanistan, al-Qaeda homeland during the Taliban. Clarke charges in his book that Bush focused on Iraq and ignored Clarke and his warnings which Clarke says would not have prevented 9/11. Clarke's heavy criticism of Bush's Iraq policy, highlighted during the hearings, would lessen support for U.S. Iraq policy, political observers observed. As a result, support has risen to 56% in the new Gallup poll.
Democrats, struggling to convey their message that America should not feel safe with Bush in power because his war in Iraq, which has nothing to do with al-Qaeda, has inflamed al-Qaeda and that the way to really fight al-Qaeda is to wage indictments and subpoenas, had pinned their hopes on Clarke and his testimony. Clarke's testimony apparently did inflict very heavy damage -- helping solidify Kerry's powerful image as a wimp, cementing Bush's 53%-29 lead over Kerry on the issue of keeping America safe, according to a brand new Pew poll. Clarke's charges against Bush have had tremendous sticking power on Kerry.
The Democrat problem in a nutshell? This: Ask a Dem why, if Bush is a such a screw-up, we haven't seen another terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11? Their likely (frenzied) response: 'I can explain! It's not what you think!'
Meanwhile, bowing to mounting political pressure from polls showing his approval ratings surging, President Bush announced Tuesday he's agreed to allow Condi Rice to testify publicly before the 9/11 commission. (Finally! The 9/11 crime mystery will unravel! She'll crack under cross-examination and give up BushCo! 'Yes, I did it! I did it! But Bush made me do it!') Reversing a position they've defended for weeks, Democrats and the media immediately attacked the President for reversing a position he's defended for weeks. (Democrats were already seething that a "qualified" white guy named Dick Clarke lost his job to a black woman when Bush came to town. Clarke was moved into some dark and dankly little office, you know, the same one where Bush keeps Osama. Ask Madeleine Albright if you don't believe me). Members of the 9/11 commission were elated at the White House announcement that Condi will testify, especially since they already know what she's going to say, having already spent 4 hours grilling her privately. (Condi, what did the President know and when did he know it? Do you have an alibi for 9/11?) It's especially valuable that she testify since nothing new will likely be learned, experts say. Commissioners already heard her testimony so it's important they hear her testimony again.
They say the 9/11 commission is supposed to get to the causes of 9/11. I have this unusual theory that could help solve the riddle and get us to the bottom of what caused 9/11 and I didn't need millions of research dollars to figure it out: Islamofascists caused it. Write that down.
My intrepid prediction: Condoleeza Rice -- passionate, brilliant, articulate, witty -- will captivate the nation with her testimony, presenting, in her uniquely eloquent way, Bush's vision for ridding the world of the terrorist menace. Democrats had hounded Condi to testify. After she testifies, they will rue the day they did. She will rip them to shreds.
Memo to Dems: Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents..
"JohnHuang2"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
