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]

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.

[Hildy]

Democrats just can't stand a strong America. They do everything they can to weaken us day after day after day. I'm getting so tired of it.

[BikePacker]

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

[HarryCaul]

Those aren't bad numbers on Clarke at all. He didn't affect anyone, despite what they may say. With only %25 believing him, he only got through to hardcore Dems anyway.

[Qwinn]

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.

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.

Qwinn

[jla]

Once again, the Left counts on Americans being too 'unsophisticated' to detect their chicanery.
Once again, the Left fails.

[HarryCaul]

If the Dems had a strong candidate, some of the less morally coherent among them might wish for a terror attack. But with Kerry, a terror attack can't do anything but hurt him. Noone would trust him to respond properly.

[quidnunc]

The favorable ratings aren't the critical numbers it's the unfavorable ratings, and Bush's are in the danger zone up above 40% — well above Kerry's.

[FairOpinion]

They also have a poll at Newsweek on the webpage
("live poll"):


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032542/

Should President George W. Bush apologize for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks?

60% Yes. It's clear the administration should have done more

35% No. They couldn't have known--and hindsight is always 20/20

5% I don't know

[FairOpinion]

Another "live poll" at Newsweek:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4614361/

[syriacus]

Should President George W. Bush apologize for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks?

Clarke was the right person to apologize.

While Al Qaeda was plotting 9/11, Clarke was busily obsessing over cyber terrorism.
Clarke is the one who failed.

U.S. Sees Threat of Information Warfare, Washington Times (12/27/00) P. B7

Malicious groups "are doing reconnaissance today on our networks, mapping them, looking for vulnerabilities," says Richard Clarke, the top aide to President Clinton on infrastructure protection and counterterrorism.

[FairOpinion]

The questions asked at

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4614361/

are the same questions that the "valid" poll was asking.

AFTER you vote, you get to see the results of the online poll and the actual poll.

[Cicero]

The favorable ratings aren't the critical numbers it's the unfavorable ratings, and Bush's are in the danger zone up above 40% — well above Kerry's.

I agree with you. Not only that, but if they just change the numbers by 1% that's still a major accomplishment. It's drip, drip, drip, one unfavorable story after another, and it will continue from now until November.

At some point Bush will have to do something much more dramatic to cut through these lies and tip the balance the other way.

[FRgal4u]

I consider the quote saying -

..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 single most damaging news to the dims.

With all the intense white washing campaigns done by the dims, the media, Clarke, 9/11 hearings, sixty-five percent still say Clinton didn't take terrorism threat serious enough. This is the anchor and could well explain the far less than expected impact on Bush this time around.

Seriously, I was one of those thinking Bush will take a 8 to 10 pt hit in the polls (after I saw how the media spin the Clarke thing and the politization of the 9/11 hearing). I never thought the solid anchor of Clinton doing his job on WOT serves as a nice comparison that Bush, while may not be perfect, is a whole lot better than Clinton on this issue. The public don't have a reference to compare Kerry on WOT, and therefore they base their decisions on what they saw in the Clinton adm. and used that as a reference. Quite an unexpected twist on this Clarke saga. The 57% approval of Bush's handling the issue of WOT could well be the low watermark here. Not bad.

This Bush-Clarke ordeal is one that sucks up all the oxygen around Kerry. No one is paying attention to the Kerry speeches, this comes at a time when the Bush ads on Kerry is sticking (with Kerry's negatives going up double digits). If I were on the Kerry camp, I'd tell the media to cut it out on this Clarke thing. The Clarke issue is working less effectively than expected while taking up precious air time away from Kerry.

jmho.

[FairOpinion]

Now I know why they didn't put the actual results of the poll into the article!

61% say that Bush did take the threat seriously prior to 9-11, and 65% say that Clinton did NOT take the threat seriously. Just remember, this is true, despite of all the Dem propaganda!!!


Go here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4614361/

VOTE and see the results of both the online and actual valid poll.

=====

Do you think that President Bush and his administration have taken the threat of global terrorism as seriously as they should have or have they not taken the threat seriously enough?

Have taken seriously 61%
Have not taken seriously enough 34%
Don't know 5%



Do you think that former president Clinton and his administration took the threat of global terrorism as seriously as they should have or did they not take the threat seriously enough?

Did take seriously 26%
Did not take seriously enough 65%
Don't know 9%



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? * 7453 web responses

More favorable 10%
Less favorable 17%
Not much different either way 65%
Don't know 8%

[Tall_Texan]

A Newsleak poll. Come back when you have something credible.

[mrsmith]

"a quarter said they feel he's acting as a dedicated public servant. "

Wow, almost half of the Democrats don't even believe the greedy "lifelong bachelor"!

"We have defeated the Taliban, and we are in the process of smashing al-Qaeda."
Richard Clarke Dec. 4 2001

[FairOpinion]

Check out my post 15 with some of the actual results. Even with their liberal polling and the vicious attacks on Bush, most people still see the truth.

[LibFreeUSA]

-"Democrats just can't stand a strong America. They do everything they can to weaken us day after day after day. I'm getting so tired of it."

It's not that (although I'm sure many of them are what you say), it's actually that Democrats really.... DO NOT CARE, DON'T GIVE A HOOT, COULDN'T GIVE A DAMN, and WOULD GIVE 'AID AND COMFORT' TO OUR ENEMIES, if it would help them keep or take power in our political system!

[Lancey Howard]

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

Of course they are.
Not only are the Democrats begging for a devastating terrorist attack that kills thousands of innocent civilians, but they are also begging for an economic recession in which millions of Americans lose their jobs, their homes, and their savings. These are the things that Democrats believe can propel them into cushy political offices.

How sick are the Democrats? Sick beyond words.