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.

[FairOpinion]

"we need to kill them by the hundreds if we want to make a dent on terror."

==

We have been -- I think I heard a 5000 figure at some point -- that many AQ are dead or captured. (This is not the same as the 2/3 figure of the top leadership, that is probably in dozens -- this is actual AQ members.)

[templar]

I'd like to see the questions and the demographics. 65% not changing their view doesn't mean anything. The 35% who did change their view could be meaningful information if one knew what their view was to start with.

[FairOpinion]

Has what Clarke said about Bush made you feel more favorably toward Bush or less favorably toward Bush, or hasn't it made much difference either way?
More favorable 10%
Less favorable 17%
Not much different either way 65%
Don't know 8%

[My2Cents]

True, but the Newsweek poll shows that the coercive effect of Clark's media blitz had a measurable effect upon the sheeple. A certain percentage of folks out there in TV land seem to be affected by negative stories, with little to no reflective thought on their part.

[My2Cents]

I think that the attacks in Spain highlighted the continued reality of the terrorist threat upon the west. A few weeks ago, about 10% of the people said that terrorism was the #1 issue. I haven't seen a poll on this since the Spain bombings, but I'd bet that terrorism as an issue has once again risen in the minds of Ameicans.

[FairOpinion]

"coercive effect of Clark's media blitz had a measurable effect upon the sheeple."


===

I agree -- I think that's why it's crucial that the Bush team immediately respond and debunk the Dems lies. I wish they had started about a year ago -- but at least they are awake now.

[mdmathis6]

Interesting when you compare the Newsweek numbers with the msnbc numbers....Freepers have been caught sleeping with this MSNBC poll...

[lepton]

bookmark bump

[gathersnomoss]

"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,"

Tell a lie often enough and it seems true. Democrats will win if Bush allows this team of democrats to place him constantly on the defensive. He better not morph into his daddy when the heat is on.

Where is Karen when you need her?

[talleyman]

Bad guys still winning - but consider the venue. I freeped anyway.

[talleyman]

Man, talk about being in the belly of the beast over at Newsweak...

[My2Cents]

Yeah, the Bush Adm. should have been working to inoculate the public against the spin and lies of the Dems. I know they don't want to politicize the War on Terror, but let's face it...it's politicized already.

I love W, but my one pet peeve is that he and the Administration have not been very public about their victories in this war. We who follow the news religiously are aware, but Joe Sixpack out there isn't. Frankly, I'd like to hear some of the victories we've had in thwarting attacks on this nation; you know there have been victories, but because of "security" concerns or a concern about not panicking people, they've not been public about it. Consequently, whenever the terrorist threat level is bumped up a notch, it results in people laughing about it. I bet this nation has come close to other terror attacks, but they haven't been announced. I think the Adm. should be letting the public know how close we've come to other hits. Scare the bejeebers out of folks...as far as I'm concerned, that's fine. It may wake people up to the fact that this Administration has been vigilant and effective, and it would also wake people up that we need to keep this Administration in office.

The other thing I have a hunch about is that the Defense Dept. and our intelligence agencies probably have some pretty solid evidence about the fate of Iraq's WMD, and Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda, but again, they're keeping the information close to the vest. Frankly, this is more than a hunch, because all one needs to do is a Google search of "Saddam and terrorism" and see what's publicly known, or read David Kay's interim report to the CIA from last October on the WMD issue.

In sum, I think the Administration has done a horrible job promoting it's own successes in the War on Terror.

[FairOpinion]

"In sum, I think the Administration has done a horrible job promoting it's own successes in the War on Terror."


===

I agree with you 100%, and share the same frustration. They way overestimated the decency of the Democrats, and underestimated the ignorance of the American people.
Even when the Dems were making it very clear over the last year, that they are willing to sacrifice national security for politica gain, the Bush administration didn't fight back.

We can't go back in time, I am glad to see that they are finally doing it now, but I think they should amplify it about ten fold, keep up the defense, but also need to go on offensive, tell people about their successes and point out what things were like and would be like under Kerry.

[My2Cents]

Yes, it's a miracle that Bush is either in a statistical tie with Kerry, or slightly ahead in most polls. I've read that W learned at the feet of Lee Atwater during the '88 campaign for "H.W.", so I have hope they'll start hitting back harder.

[daybreakcoming]

clarke is the one who failed.

That's been my thinking all along. He is not so dumb that he did not realize that one day history will show him as a key figure in the failure to protect our country.