Reuters: Clarke Charges on Bush Seem to Have Sticking Power

[darknemus]

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.

(snip)

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.

(snip)

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.

(snip)

Overall, I think the article is an excellent read and makes the very direct point that this isn't going away anytime soon.

Link: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4689886&pageNumber=0

-darknemus

[KissMyAsscroft]

1. It's the fact that rice won't testify that is hurting them.

It's the one thing that they can't spin.

People know what it means when you don't want to testify.

And the attacking of Clarke personally only works against people who don't understand the game and Clarke is not one of those people.

[RoundRockD]

3. I agree

It appears that what she has to say is worse than all the heat they're taking for her not testifying. Why does the administration continue to refuse to let her testify? Maybe I'm wrong but I'm beginning to think that they've got a lot to hide.

[aquart]

6. You're just beginning to think that?

It's been my constant belief for 4 years.

[0007]

19. they've got a lot to hide."

....and hiding a mountain is goddamn hard.

[damnraddem]

31. Not only have they long had a lot to hide ...

they also haven't been very good at hiding it.

The difference is that the media is finally remembering how to find what isn't hidden very well.

[PassingFair]

47. They are terrified of being under oath,

and with good reason. Remember "It's not about a blowjob-it's about PERJURY". "He lied under oath". "Burn him, he's a witch". Well, you get my drift.
This is why Cheney stonewalled the energy investigations. They will not go under oath if they can help it, because they cannot help buy lie. And when they get caught in a lie, no matter what it is about (Blowjob!) they can be taken down, just like Clintoon.
They will not be sworn in to ANY tribunal if they can possible avoid it.

[BigBigBear]

15. Not the only thing

The reality is that Rice and Bush failed to respond to the threat posed by Al Qaeda. They can talk about Clarke all they want, but until they prove they actually did something, Clarke's charges will ring true.

[Occulus]

26. And she can't testify without

doing something really egregious, like lying under oath or even pleading the Fifth.

My, but they are in a bind, no?

[Jack from Charlotte]

30. Her stonewall is very damaging politically ............

and I thought her not testifying was just more stupidity on behalf of these incompetent republican morons. However, even these dumb asses must have now seen how damaging Con Rice's refusal to come clean has been.

So I'm fairly certain, they really, really think they're better off taking the political heat rather than allowing Richard Ben Venista to drill a new orifice into Con Rice's scrawny arse.

Especially since everyone on this board has read 6 or more actual items she's been caught lying about.

[SemperEadem]

38. I dare say that Con Rice's defiance is going to be the subject

of a book in the not too distant future. I just wish I had the money to subscribe to Lexus/Nexus so that I can contrast for myself her lies on the various talk shows about what she knew/what bush knew/when she knew it/when he knew it.

She is in the deepest doo-doo and has no way of getting out without getting everyone around her, who otherwise would help, covered in offal.

so, let her go on the talk shows, snaking her neck and acting all indignant... the fact is she didn't do her job and hundreds of Americans on their own soil died as a result.

[Bandit]

34. Heard a Democrat from California say it is now critical for her to testify

In Public under Oath because she has been giving contradictory statements to the media from what witnesses have testified to. It is now necessary for her to go on the record and clear things up. Best argument I have heard yet. She cooked her own goose by being all over the airwaves contradicting witnesses who were under oath while refusing to testify under oath herself. What brainpower there is being demonstrated by this Cabal. I guess I am just dumbfounded that they can be soo dumb.

[boobooday]

2. I mean really, if this one dies out

I will give up all hope in the American people.

This is devastating, especially given Bush's campaign based on his heroism in the "war on terra" And I can't imagine that it is going to get any better, unless the media helps the people forget, which is what they do best.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[calimary]

17. I can't imagine how A) 57 percent still approve, and B) the White House

has managed to hurt Clarke somewhat. I think he's just immaculately credible, from everything I've seen and heard and read from him, and (from the people who know him) about him.

By the way, I've been calling Capitol Hill (note my sig line) and urging that they MAKE "Contradicta Rice" testify under oath. When I say "Contradicta Rice," I get a lot of laughs!

[JohnOneillsMemory]

22. 57% because our Fallow Americans watch TV and don't read.

Jews were piled into the ovens despite being 'right.' There are grave psychological impediments to the public realizing that their government has a combination of Nazi Germany and South African policies.

People who wrongly think their government represents them will defend that government as though it were themselves.

That is the power of indoctrination and propaganda, not being 'RIGHT.'

Sorry to tsk-tsk but I'm reminded of the progressive movement's recent realizations that:

1) The TRUTH will NOT SET YOU FREE.
2) LOVE is NOT ALL YOU NEED.


It is hard to not cite the ignorance of the population at large without being accused of 'alienation elitism.'

But it is the dreadful truth. And the flag-thumping bible-wavers exploit this to murderous consequence.

They literally get away with mass murder while everyone watches football and 'Friends' with a red-white-and-blue logo of some kind in almost every screen shot they see until it becomes part of 'God's World,' as much as blue sky and green grass.

[orwell]

25. Amen Bro n/t

[gemini62167]

29. I Couldn't Have Said It Better If I Tried :)

Frightening words, but reality can be. . .

[newyawker99]

44. Hi gemini62167!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Westegg]

4. I love how I can see some Bushies on one TV channel...

...smugly saying that "the majority of Americans" can see right through Clarke and his devious "true motivations," and then I can flip to another channel and see OTHER Bushies righteously complaining about how much money Clarke's going to make from his book. Well, which is it, you idiots?! If the majority think Clarke's a fraud, how's he gonna make all this money from his book?

Sorry. Had to get that off my chest. Now I'll read the Reuters piece.

[underpants]

16. 2/3 (65%) say the Clarke statements don't change their opinion of W

Which sounds like 2/3 dismiss it but if you already had a negative opinion of W it is more than likely still that way and since 17% said (Newsweek poll) that they see him more negatively (10% more positively :eyes: ) more people are more likely to have a negative opinion of him.

A horribly asked question in the Newsweek poll and I saw MSNBC spin it as being 2/3 "see through it" this weekend.


My GD thread about this here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1307067&mesg_id=1307067

[Westegg]

27. Thanks for putting that poll into objective perspective!

[goclark]

5. Excellent Post!

If you notice the Right Wing media folks are not really shouting too loud in Condi's defense.

All morning I have seen clips of the same thing. Condi saying that she would like to testify and then a clip of CLARKE or someone saying that she needs to testify.

Seems to me they are letting her twist slowly in the wind. IMO she is spinning in the wind and it's got to blow soon.

Bye Bye Condi
Georgie Boy is on his own.
Who will read to him?
Who will think for him?
Who will whisper in his ear piece?
On my Condi, bye bye!

[The Magistrate]

7. Mr. Clarke's Charges, SIr, Have Legs Like A Millipede

They have the sovereign advantage of being true; that is a thing it is extraordinarily difficult to spin away.

People understand two big things about this matter perfectly. First, that a concentrated attack on Mr. Clarke himself, rather than an effective rebuttal of his charges, is tantamount to a confession his charges are accurate. Second, that the refusal of Rice to testify publicly under oath is tantamount to a confession all that she has said in public address of this matter is a tissue of lies, that she dare not repeat under oath.

People are brought by this controversy into reach of a realization that the platform of the jackanapes' campaign really boils down to no more than this: "I was in charge when the enemy sucker-punched us! Vote for me!"

"Desperate men do desperate things, and stupid men do stupid things. We are in for a desperately stupid summer."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[wryter2000]

12. Jackanapes

Nice one, Mr. Magistrate. I'm looking foward to a desperately stupid summer.

The more they protest and attack Clarke, the longer the milipede stomps around in wee hobnailed boots.

[jbfam4]

13. I always agree with you

you have such a way with words...you, Sir, are truly a word smith.

My hope is besides posting here for all of us to enjoy, that you have articles published in newspapers.

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. Ditto!

what he said. the magistrate always seems to say what i'm thinking, but just can't articulate. you, sir, are indeed a "word smith".:thumbsup:

[ewagner]

23. Aaahhhhh...Magistrate

They have the sovereign advantage of being true;

Sir, I do admire your prose!

Well said!

[rocktivity]

24. The Magistrate agreed with something I once posted

and I felt like I'd gotten a Pulitizer prize!

:headbang:
rocknation

[9215]

36. Bravo! Very well said!

:thumbsup:

[psychopomp]

8. Where's Asscraft to ratchet up the terra fear when * needs him?

Their gameplan has fallen to pieces and the sh@t has hit the fan!

[zbdent]

9. Remember the days when Repukes claimed the only polls that

counted were the ones at the ballot boxes?

Then Smirky was up in the polls.

Oops then he went down. Before the Rs could disclaim the polls again, 9/11 happened, and you couldn't say non-praising things about W.

Then his polls went down again. We went to war. Polls back up.

Polls slipping down. Hey, Spain's "conservative" numbers are up! Whoops, guess the ballot box didn't hear about the polls. Let's blame it on the terroristas.

Polls are down again. How long before they start claiming that the polls don't mean anything again?

[underpants]

18. "The stock market is NOT the economy"

How many times did you hear that in the 90's?

Ooops nothing much very positive to report............LOOK AT HOW THE STOCK MARKET HAS REBOUNDED!!!!!!!!!!

They couldn't get their heads around the fact that 73% still approved of Clinton after all the time energy and OUR money they spent to knock him down. The same thing is afoot here with Clarke, people see that they aren't debating issues but just attacking someone who dare question them. They got away with that for the first year+ after 9/11 but seeing people (all the Dem candidates) night after night bashing Bush people see that it is okay to come out and ask questions.

[PassingFair]

48. They will soon have real growth figures to report...

My husband and I have been in business for ourselves for over 12 years. The last 4 have seen our sales plummet so severely, that 5 years ago, we paid more in taxes than we MADE last year.
I had to go and get a job pushing advertising for someone else. Well, guess what I'm seeing out there...
My husband is getting busy again but not from our old manufacturing and high-end agency clients, but from minority firms getting government contracts.
Several of the new clients I'm dealing with, including an Heating & Cooling Co, are riding a wave of Federal Gov. contracts, putting new appliances, furnaces, etc. into lower-income housing for "testing" purposes... Also, 2 language bureaus we used to do a lot of business with are heating back up.
I'm telling all these business owners, get it while you can. Election years don't last forever. Bushies are PUMPING money into the economy. No wonder they're upset at the unemployment figures, they're paying A LOT of money to make those numbers go away. Problem seems to be, corporations are just not hiring.
One of my new clients, a small shipping company gets a call EVERY WEEK from the feds, looking to verify employment numbers and payroll numbers. They're looking toward non-W2 earners to beef up the figures for them.
Just my observation, taken from speaking to about 20 small business owners a day.

[Beetwasher]

10. Of Course They Do!

They cut right to the heart of the only thing these criminals had in their favor and for once the press is paying attention.

Clarke's got 'em right where he wants them. He played the whole thing masterfully!

I think he set them up and played them good from the get go!

More here:

Did Clarke play the players?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1306823&mesg_id=1306823

[leftchick]

11. Declassify The Emails!!!

I loved that suggestion from Richard Clarke on MTP! I also love the way he keeps putting new challenges out there for them to answer each time he is interviewed. Keep raising those stakes for the bushistas* Mr. Clarke! I can't wait to see him on tweety tonight!

[thebaghwan]

20. We should be writing Frist and Delay and all the other repukes to demand

they:

1: Declassify all the material as Mr. Clarke has suggested and

2: Demand that Rice testify under oath publicly.

We should be writing in the guise of a repug. Saying we are starting to have doubts of another victory in 2004. That will through into a fix. Folks we now have an opportunity to keep Bush on the defensive and cause some real damage to his campaign. This will hurt far greater than the AWOL situation. We must work to keep these issues before the American people.

[NuttyFluffers]

28. i'm a registered republican

i can do what you ask. give me frisk and delay's email.

honestly i'm surprised there aren't more of you registered as republicans. everytime they send me propaganda (and it's a hell of a lot more than when i was registered democrat) i think of it as money they wasted. sure they have more where that came from, but each cent costs. besides, whenever one of the crazy conservatives call me a flaming liberal i mention that i'm a registered republican - it tends to silence them pretty quick. builds doubt.

so any, as you say... freepers, hiding out here reading this, tee hee, who can you trust? can you trust even your own 'party members'? are 'liberals' popping up everywhere, are you truly outnumbered? ;)

ahh, twist in the wind, my dearies, twist in the wind.

[dae]

21. Like it's been said, she can talk her head off about terrorism and

what the Administration did to anyone with a microphone or camera on her terms, but not under oath.
Even some of the more politically challenged population are starting to pick up on the double standard.

[catmandu57]

32. The fact that this is still around

as strong as it is a week later, is a very good sign. The longer this ball stays in the air, the more people will see it and start to ask the questions that we have been asking here.
I get the feeling that contradicta will eat one too many happy pills, and take the answers to the grave.

[Snivi Yllom]

33. more at this USA Today gallup poll

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-03-29-poll_x.htm

Poll: Bush credibility down
By Richard Benedetto, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — President Bush's credibility rating is down since his former counterterrorism chief went public last week with accusations that Bush minimized the al-Qaeda threat to focus on getting rid of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.
The Bush administration did not do all it could to prevent the attacks, 54% say, and 53% say the White House is covering up something about its handling of intelligence before Sept. 11.

Still, 67% say the administration should not have been expected to prevent the tragedy. But Americans' doubts have not meant greater reluctance to return Bush to office.

In a two-way matchup, Bush leads Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, 51%-47%, which is a 7 percentage-point gain in three weeks for Bush and a 5-point drop for Kerry. Three weeks ago, when Kerry was coming off a string of primary victories, Bush trailed him by 6 points.

If independent Ralph Nader is included, he gets 4%, Bush 49% and Kerry 45%.

[Zynx]

35. I don't get how his issues ratings and other things fall, but his re-elect

goes higher. Americans are screwed up.

[papau]

39. Gallup gets a different answer than today's Pew Research Kerry lead

While the poll released Monday finds American voters still consider Bush far stronger than Democratic rival John Kerry in defending the country against terrorism, and while Kerry has lost ground on domestic issues after the Bush ads, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press still has 47 percent for Kerry and 46 percent for Bush. When independent Ralph Nader is in the mix, the two remain tied, while Nader gets 6 percent.

And the ket item is that swing voters who before Clarke's allegations were made public were over 75% yes as to Bush "strong on handling terrorism" are now just over 50% saying Bush is stronger on terrorism.

The ads have hurt Kerry on jobs, with the Kerry advantage over Bush of almost 20 points in the Pew poll in mid-March now down to eight points, 45-37, in the new survey, and likewise on healthcare Kerry's advantage over Bush shrank from 28 points to 13 points.

But this is a "vacation" result - the lower vacation "profile" really has not been made up by the move-on ads.

[yardwork]

40. This analysis is B.S.

The reporter left off the margin of error (again). Looking at the margin of error for each poll, the results are exactly the same - pretty much a dead heat.

Personally, I don't believe that the polls are accurate to start with, but the reporters' insistence on staying totally ignorant of the basic foundations of statistics (despite numerous letters to editors pointing this out every week) guarantees that poll results are meaningless to the average person.

It's really pathetic how ignorant and partisan the media has become. Really pathetic.

[Voltaire99]

37. Why 57 percent "approve of how Bush handled terrorism"

Some of the 57 percent is trained reflex: it's what you get after nearly two years of hearing the putative opposition tell TV cameras that "the president is doing a fine job in the war on terror."

Now, roughly 1/3 of that number are congenitally-afflicted Republicans. Of course, there have been high-profile defections.

That means better than 1/3 of the nation still doesn't get it. We can expect that the famous wishy-washy center makes up most of that number--dutiful souls who look to the mainstream media for guidance, along with followers of the imperial New Democrats like Hillary, Kerry, Lieberman, whose foreign policy views are written by The New Republic.

It will take leadership to end puppy-doggish support for Iraq. A draft would help do that, since it would send middle class kids to die alongside the "volunteer" army. Based on his calls for sending more troops to Iraq, Kerry, if he wins, will be sorely tempted to institute a draft.

But we don't have to sink to that. Rather than simply accepting Kerry's positions, progressives should tell his campaign that they want the candidate to back off his error on Iraq. He's your candidate: tell him where to stand.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

43. The big question concerns who they chose to poll in the first place.

[tom_paine]

41. But...but...CNN says it hurt Kerry!

My God, what I wouldn't give to have a Free Press again!

[Snivi Yllom]

42. DRUDGE is dropping a bomb on Clarke -1999: CLARKE REFUSED TO TESTIFY

the Clarke smearing continues.....

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX MON MARCH 29, 2004 17:04:22 ET XXXXX

1999: CLARKE REFUSED TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH; CITING PRIVILEGE

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Monday continued to maintain her public testimony before the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks would represent a breach of separation between congress and the executive -- a claim once used by Bush critic Richard Clarke!

MORE

On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Y2K computer scare.

Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee -- due to a directive by the National Security Council.

The congressional record; Senator Bennett:

"Before the committee comes to order, I have some information to share with you which I'm sure will cause some consternation and disappointment. We were scheduled -- at the beginning of this gathering we agreed not to call that portion of it a hearing, to have a briefing from Mr. Richard Clarke. And many of you have been notified that he would be here and as recently as yesterday afternoon when I was with him, we were looking forward to his appearance and he was sharing with me some of the areas that he planned to discuss while he was here.

"Mr. Clarke, as many of you know, is the national coordinator for security and infrastructure protection and counterterrorism on the National Security Council.

"Last night, into the evening, we were notified that the legal staff of the National Security Council had determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to appear. I have just spoken to him on the telephone. The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress. They can perform briefings, but they are not to give testimony. And that in response to that rule, Mr. Clarke will not be coming.

"He apologized to me for their failure to tell us that in a way that would have prevented our putting out the press notice in advance. I do not, in any sense, attribute any improper motives to Mr. Clarke. We had understood that the briefing could be held as long as there was no record made of it so that it would not be part of the formal hearing. And we were prepared to receive his briefing with the court recorder being instructed not to make any record of it and that that would comply with the rule.

"As I say, last evening I received a call at home after the Senate had adjourned telling me that that arrangement would not be acceptable to the legal staff at the National Security Council and that Mr. Clarke, therefore, would not be here.

"He said in our phone conversation just a minute or two ago that he would be happy to come before the committee and give us whatever information we wanted in a closed briefing. I suppose we could have cleared the room here this morning and allowed him to give that briefing to the committee, but I felt given the fact that so many people had gathered it would be an inconvenience for them if we were to do that.

"So we will schedule a briefing with Mr. Clarke at some future time. And the members of the committee will disclose that which we feel is appropriate to disclose based on his briefing.

"We are disappointed. His conversation with me minutes ago make it clear that he is disappointed. I know he wanted to be here, but that is what has taken place in the last 10 to 12 hours. "So with that word of explanation and, as I say, disappointment to many of you, I will now officially call the committee to order..."

END

[robbedvoter]

45. And this is relevant to 9.11 - how?

As John Stewart said: "I bet he's not even a dude'
be sure to watch this:

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/8117.html

> http://tinyurl.com/327oq

[demgrrrll]

46. I think it is significant to note that the USA today Mcpaper which leans

fairly consistently to the right today ran with the headline
Clarke Wants Testimony Released. They gave him an above the
fold platform for his statement, which I believe has put the
WH in a more defensive posture regarding Condi's testimony.
What I believe at this point is that there seem to be
certain threads that are unraveling at the same time and I also believe that the worst mistake that they made was outing
Plame. I believe that may have something to do with the
Woodward book. I have read Woodward has ties to the CIA.

[underpants]

50. A difference though-Clarke hadn't been confirmed

Legalese sure but if they want to accuse Clarke/Clinton of that aren't they accusing themselves of the same? Not that anyone would report it though.

[leesa]

49. Imagine that! Despite Reuters and the other whore's best efforts

to kill it.