Clarke charges on Bush seem to have sticking power reuters.com
[ In which it is alleged that the all-points slime early, slime often operation by W's political flacks may be a mistake. Who can say? ]
By Alan Elsner
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House may have mishandled accusations leveled by their former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke by attacking his credibility, keeping the controversy firmly in the headlines into a second week, political analysts said.
Clarke's charge that the Bush administration did not regard the threat posed by the al Qaeda organization as an urgent matter in the run-up to Sept. 11, 2001, has been superseded
by a secondary issue of whether National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice should testify under oath before the national commission investigating that day's attacks.
"The administration's attempts to discredit Clarke have backfired. They have merely given the story legs and hurt the administration. The issue of whether Rice should testify should keep the story alive for several more news cycles," said University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape.
"The Bush administration and its allies have certainly not helped the story go away," said Howard Opinsky, a Republican operative who ran media relations for Arizona Sen. John McCain during his 2000 presidential bid.
"Instead, they adopted the risky strategy of trying to refute his charges, which makes it appear that they have something to hide," he said.
Clarke accuses Bush, who is running for re-election on his record of fighting terrorism, of being obsessed with ousting Iraq's President Saddam Hussein at the expense of fully focusing on the war against terrorism.
The White House at first questioned an assertion by Clarke that President George W. Bush asked him immediately after Sept. 11 to investigate whether Saddam was involved but on Sunday it confirmed that the conversation had taken place.
When Republicans said they would seek to declassify testimony Clarke gave to Congress in July 2002 to demonstrate differences to what he is saying now, Clarke told them to go ahead. If that occurs, the issue will remain in the headlines even longer.
BUSH HURT
Polls have shown that 90 percent of U.S. voters were following the issue and that it was beginning to hurt Bush. A Newsweek poll released on Sunday found that 57 percent of voters approved of the way he had handled terrorism and homeland security, down from 70 percent two months ago.
But two thirds said Clarke's testimony had not influenced their overall view of Bush. Half said they thought Clarke was acting for personal and political reasons.
Looming over the summer is the commission's final report, due to be delivered in late July, when the presidential campaign will be at fever pitch.
Pressure for Rice to testify in public has come from family members of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks as well as members of the commission, including all five Republican members.
Rice has said she would like to testify but had to respect the precedent that national security advisers do not testify under oath before Congress as this could inhibit their ability to give candid advice to the president. She has spent four hours answering commissioners's questions in private.
Republican political consultant Scott Reed said the administration had succeeded in discrediting Clarke's motives to some extent. But the issue of Rice testifying was continuing to hurt the White House since many Americans wanted to hear what she had to say.
"It's hurting Bush politically," he said.
Opinsky said the White House needed to change the subject and begin talking about what it has done since September 2001 and what it is doing now to make Americans safer.
"There isn't a good way for them to spin this story. They need to get beyond it," he said. |
