The lead story on every newspaper on the street is Hamas, Hamas, Hamas...But in truth, the real lead story of the day is that the _resident's "war on terrorism" has blown up in his face. Well, actually it has blown up in the faces of a lot of other people...US/Pakistani operation in the tribal regions on the border with Afghanistan is coming up empty and the chief US government counter-terrorism expert over the last decade has just denounced the _resident for incompetence before and after 9/11...
Reuters: "Each of these revelations adds to the others
so that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts
and the message gets reinforced with voters," said
Richard Rosecrance, a political scientist at the
University of California, Los Angeles. Before Clarke,
there was former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who
asserted in a book published in January that Bush
began laying the groundwork for an attack on Iraq from
the moment he took office. Then came the bombshell
from former weapons inspector David Kay that the Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction that Bush launched the war
to find and destroy probably did not exist.
Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4635293
Analysis: Iraq Charges Against Bush Begin to Mount
Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:50 AM ET
By Alan Elsner
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Criticism of President Bush's motives and decision making in attacking Iraq last year may be acquiring critical mass with voters following criticism by former top counterterrorism official Richard Clarke.
Political consultants and analysts said Clarke's
allegation that Bush ignored the al Qaeda threat
before the Sept. 11 attacks and was obsessed by a
desire to invade Iraq were especially damaging because
they confirmed other previous revelations from policy
insiders.
"Each of these revelations adds to the others so that
the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and the
message gets reinforced with voters," said Richard
Rosecrance, a political scientist at the University of
California, Los Angeles. Before Clarke, there was
former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who asserted
in a book published in January that Bush began laying
the groundwork for an attack on Iraq from the moment
he took office. Then came the bombshell from former
weapons inspector David Kay that the Iraqi weapons of
mass destruction that Bush launched the war to find
and destroy probably did not exist.
Kay on Tuesday warned that U.S. credibility at home
and abroad was in grave danger and urged the Bush
administration to own up to its intelligence failures.
"We are in grave danger of having destroyed our
credibility internationally and domestically with
regard to warning about future events," he said. "The
answer is to admit you were wrong, and what I find
most disturbing around Washington ... is the belief
... you can never admit you're wrong."
Earlier this month, former U.N. weapons inspector Hans
Blix added to the fire by accusing Bush and British
Prime Minister Tony Blair of "exaggerating the risks
they saw in order to get the political support (for
the war) they would not otherwise have had."
The response from the White House, especially to
Clarke, has been fierce and sometimes personal. It
rejects any suggestion that Bush, running for
re-election this year as a "war president," failed to
take the al Qaeda threat seriously.
"The administration can huff and puff but if there are
enough bricks in the structure, they can't blow the
house down any more," said American University
historian Allan Lichtman.
"Right now, you have quite a number of bricks. It's
not just scaffolding any more," he said.
BAD TIMING
Clarke's bombshell came at an awkward time for Bush.
His presidential re-election campaign was just picking
up momentum after being on the defensive for most of
this year. His attacks on his Democratic opponent,
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, seemed to be finding
the mark.
Now, he is back on the defensive again.
"Bush has chosen national security and his response to
the terrorist attack as a cornerstone of his campaign
and now comes this guy Clarke, their guy, who says
that the administration was intentionally or
unintentionally not paying enough attention to the
terrorist threat," said Rick Davis, a Republican
political consultant.
With the economy struggling, Bush's strongest asset is
his claim to be a strong leader best equipped to
protect the country in a "war on terrorism."
"If people start to doubt that claim and if the
message from Clarke and O'Neill and others begins to
stick, it would seriously weaken Bush on his strongest
point," said Fordham University political scientist
Tom DeLuca.
The administration response has usually been to try to
destroy the reputations of its critics. It suggested
O'Neill had illegally used classified documents and
said he was motivated by sour grapes after having been
forced to resign from the Cabinet. A Treasury probe
has cleared him of misusing documents.
Similarly, White House aides said Clarke was bitter
about having been denied a promotion and "out of the
loop" in the administration. They also said he was a
closet Democrat working as a proxy for Bush's
presidential opponent, John Kerry.
"This administration has shown a tremendous ability to
demonize its opponents. But at some point, people
start to ask themselves, could all these people be
pathological liars? At some point, they can't all be
liars," said Democratic consultant Michael Goldman.