Poll: Clarke Doubted; Bush Support Ebbs (65% say Clarke didn't change their view of Bush)

ABC 7 ^ | March 27, 2004 | AP

[FairOpinion]

Washington (AP) - Two-thirds of Americans say the testimony of Richard Clarke, the former terrorism adviser who has been critical of the Bush administration, hasn't affected their view of the president, says a poll released Saturday.

However, public views supporting President Bush (website - news - bio) 's handling of terrorism have dipped from 65 percent to 57 percent in the last month, according to the Newsweek poll. That drop comes at a time the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks has been publicly questioning officials in the Bush and Clinton administrations about their handling of the terror threat.

The Bush campaign has placed his handling of the campaign against terrorism - his strongest issue - at the heart of his re-election bid.

Clarke left the Bush administration in early 2003, and has criticized the president for his handling of terrorism in a new book, numerous interviews and testimony before the Sept. 11 commission.

Half those surveyed in the poll after Clarke's testimony Wednesday said they thought he was acting for political and personal reasons, while a quarter said they feel he's acting as a dedicated public servant.

Two-thirds said the Clinton administration did not take the threat of terror seriously enough, while six in 10 said the Bush administration has taken the threat as seriously as it should.

The poll found the presidential race between Bush and Democrat John Kerry (website - news - bio) tied and found Bush's job approval was 49 percent.

The poll of 1,002 adults was taken Thursday and Friday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[mrsmith]

I think the Spain bombing and change in government hurt Bush in this poll more than Clarke: apparent trouble with allies and maybe a subconscious reminder of WTC.

[FairOpinion]

Here is an excellent editorial about the Dems. (it's reallly worth reading the entire article -- see below)


Ripples of 9-11
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1106361/posts

"The Democrats don’t have a strategy for fighting terror: they have a plan for managing its political consequences. A Democratic Administration will respond to any terror attack with tough rhetoric and Cruise Missiles, then they will exploit it to press their domestic agenda. I don’t believe that even a nuclear bomb in one of America’s great cities would wake them up. A basic hostility towards American strength has been weaved into their souls by decades of poisonous lies. They cannot be trusted to defend this Republic against its enemies."

[teletech]

Time to find old Binny boy & Dr. Al.

[Gorilla44]

Oops. Looks like Clarke has been busted in another lie. Via Instapundit:

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/clarke.htm

Question:

Richard A. Clarke makes assertions in his book Against All Enemies that can be easily checked against external and unambiguous sources. Is Clarke truthful in verifiable assertions he makes?



Answer:

No, in at least one instance Clarke totally fabricates a position he attributes to another author's book, and then use his fabrication to discredit that author's position.

On p.95 of his Against All Enemies, Clarke states that author Laurie Mylroie had asserted "Ramzi Yousef was not in the federal Metropolitan Detention Center in Manhattan but lounging at the right hand of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad." He then debunks this "thesis" by stating that, in fact, Ramzi Yousef "had been in a U.S. jail for years," which was true.

Obviously, if Yousef had been in prison in America, he could not be in Baghdad at the right hand of Saddam, and Mylroie's theory was demonstratively untrue-- a discreditation he considers important enough to feature on the back dust jacket of his book.
The problem here is that the straw man Clarke demolishes is an invention entirely of his own creation. Mylroie did not write anything remotely like it. On the contrary, she explicitly states on p. 212 of her book Study Of Revenge, "Ramzi Yousef was arrested and returned to the U.S. on February 7, 1995." While she questions the provenance of documents he used prior to his capture in 1995, she does not claim in her book that Yousef resides anywhere but a maximum security federal prison.
Clarke simply himself makes up the absurd assertion Yousef was in Baghdad with Saddam, falsely attributes it to Mylroie, then uses it to discredit Mylroie.

Collateral question:

Why Did Clarke go to such extreme lengths-- including a blatant fabrication-- to discredit Mylroie's book?

[gswilder]

This headline does not really reflect the poll. Again, the media is very selective in what they report or highlight. I am amazed that this close to the Clark testimony that Bush got such high marks. No surprise on Clinton.

[Azzurri]

Had this been a Democrat president, Clarke would've been a one day mini-story. The Democrats would've skewered him and the media would've played along, brandishing him as a liar and un-credible. Because we have a Republican president, the story has legs because the media keeps it alive. That, is the biggest battle Republicans face...a Democrat-sympathetic media that is underhanded and hypocritical in their reporting.

[DrDeb]

I just posted the following analysis on another thread discussing this same poll:


THIS POLL OFFERS GREAT NEWS!

DESPITE the best efforts of the Kerry/DNC/Media cabal, Clarke has had ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON EITHER THE PRESIDENT'S APPROVAL RATINGS OR HIS MATCH-UP RATINGS VIS-A-VIS KERRY!


NEWSWEEK POLL

GWB Approval Ratings:
3/25-26/04 49% approve 45% disapprove
3/18-19/04 48% approve 44% disapprove
2/05-06/04 48% approve 45% disapprove
1/29-30/04 49% approve 44% disapprove
[Despite relentless adhominem attacks, the President's approval ratings have remained remarkably STABLE!]

GWB Favorability Ratings:
3/25-26/04 51% favorable 44% unfavorable
3/18-19/04 52% favorable 42% unfavorable
2/19-20/04 49% favorable 47% unfavorable

Match-Up with Kerry/Nader:
3/25-26/04 GWB 45% Kerry 43% Nader 5%
3/18-19/04 GWB 45% Kerry 43% Nader 5%

Took Terror Threat Seriously:
Bush Administration:
61% took seriously 34% did not take seriously
Clinton Administration:
26% took seriously 65% did not take seriously

Clark:
25% selfless public servant
50% pursuing a personal or political agenda
25% don't know (too clueless to form an opinion)

After Clark's testimony:
10% more favorable opinion of the President
17% less favorable opinion (recalcitrant leftists)
65% no difference


THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY ARE BUTTRESSED BY SIMILAR RESULTS FROM FOXNEWS/OPINION DYNAMICS AND RASMUSSEN! The former also found no change post-Clark relative to the President's approval/match-up ratings and the latter, while initially determining that the President's ratings had dipped (one bad night of polling), now indicates that the President's ratings are virtually the same as before Clark's testimony!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/


The President has weathered Clarke, high fuel prices, stock market gyrations, increased Middle East violence, and contrived media controversies (e.g., the President's comments at the Broadcaster's dinner) AND HIS RATINGS HAVE REMAINED STABLE.

BOTTOMLINE: The President's support is rock solid (as is his Democrat opposition). The election will hinge on the 5-7% of voters who are genuinely unaffiliated and their perception of domestic/world events in October!

[FairOpinion]

Great news! I think it's because this time the Bush Administration and Republicans immediately proved Clarke was lying.

[FairOpinion]

Here is an excerpt from an article showing that Clarke was the one who was useless in the fight of terror prior to 9-11:

Numbers May Indicate Media Bias on Richard Clarke Story

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200403\POL20040326b.html


"Shays letter

In a letter to the 9/11 commission on Wednesday, Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) told panel members that "Clarke was part of the problem before Sept. 11 because he took too narrow a view of the terrorism threat."

Shays said that before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, a House panel held twenty hearings and two formal briefings on terrorism -- and Richard Clarke "was of little help in our oversight."

"When he briefed the subcommittee, his answers were both evasive and derisive," Shays said in his March 24, 2004 letter.

Shays noted that "no truly national strategy to combat terrorism was ever produced during Mr. Clarke's tenure."

Shays also released a copy of a letter he wrote to Clarke on July 5, 2000, telling Clarke that Shays' subcommittee found the information Clarke had given them "less than useful," and asking him to answer additional questions.

And Shays released a January 22, 2001 letter he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, complaining that Clarke had not answered the subcommittee's questions. "During a briefing to this Subcommittee, Mr. Clarke stated that there is no need for a national strategy," Shays wrote to Rice.

"This Subcommittee, and others, disagree with Mr. Clarke's assessment that U.S. government agencies do not require a planning and preparation document to respond to terrorist attacks," Shays wrote."


Shay's letter is here:


http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2004/911commissionLetter.pdf

[mrsmith]

What the Clarke brouhaha has succeeded at is distracting people from the failure of Clinton and the Dems.
That would have been the topic last week but a good offense has been their best defense- with a lot of help from the media as usual.

I agree this week comes out a wash but it should have hurt the Dems.

[teletech]

Any sway in voter opinion about President Bush seems to temporary. This early in the campaign, you're going to see these swings where voters are reacting to the news of the day and this poll is no exception. I believe the President has SOLID support and I also believe the longer Kerry uses these useful idiots like Clarke, the sooner voters will see Kerry as a liar. Mr. 10 million jobs a.k.a. Ketchup Boy will fade in the stretch.

[syriacus]

Why Did Clarke go to such extreme lengths-- including a blatant fabrication-- to discredit Mylroie's book?

Because he has evil intentions?

[syriacus]

Thank you for your analysis, DrDeb.

[Az Joe]

Absolutely. This was one case where just being silent and letting it fade away would not work, if it ever does.

The only good strategy was to hit Clarke quickly with everything they had and they had plenty to hit him with.

Shows the White House is still on top of things.

[YoSoy2]

It's my opinion that obl is dead and if not, and is caught, he won't be caught alive. The capture of obl, dead or alive, won't affect the war on terrorism one iota, just as the capture of Saddam did not and is not affecting the war on terrorism.

We can't go on on killing them one by one - we need to kill them by the hundreds if we want to make a dent on terror.

[NYCVirago]

I am glad Bush and the Republicans came right out and immediately refuted Clarke. Only such immediate and aggressive response can counteract the Dems shameless lies.

The Bush counterattack didn't get as much coverage as I would have liked to see (Christopher Shays's excellent comments have been pretty much ignored by the media, for one thing), but at least the administration was prepared for Clarke's "revelations." They handled this much better than they did the 9/11 ad flap, that's for sure.

[WOSG]

I can say that Clarke changed my opinion of Bush. Due to his lies, I now know far more about the very definitive steps Bush -was- taking prior to 9/11 to combat terrorism, far more responsibly than his predecessor had taken. Quite honestly, I wouldn't have expected that, since we really all were living in a very complacent pre-9/10 fantasy land.

Well stated. Bush had an understanding of the problem and was taking fundamental pro-active steps to solve it. The problem existed because 8 years of Clinton administration handling of it failed to solve it.

As a result, I now support Bush even more than I already did. Thank you, Richard Clarke, for forcing me to investigate and find out that your contentions are even less true than I had previously believed. Me too, it reminds us of how much we are up against.

[teletech]

It's my opinion that obl is dead and if not, and is caught, he won't be caught alive. The capture of obl, dead or alive, won't affect the war on terrorism one iota, just as the capture of Saddam did not and is not affecting the war on terrorism.

We can't go on on killing them one by one - we need to kill them by the hundreds if we want to make a dent on terror.

We HAVE killed them by the hundreds. I don't know what to believe on OBL. If he is alive, WE WILL GET HIM! If he were dead, and we had this confirmed, I think we would have been told by now unless keeping it a secret nets us other bad guys. I think by November we will know one way or the other.

[Jorge]

How much ya wanna bet the Rats are praying for a successful terrorist attack this summer?

They can pray all they want. God sees their evil intentions.

And I believe God is still in control and will reward the Rats with the re-election of George Bush in November.

[adam_az]

"How much ya wanna bet the Rats are praying for a successful terrorist attack this summer?"

You mean BESIDES having their convention? ;)