According to a fairly robust theory of voting behavior, based on empirical research into human cognition, general impressions usually take permanent root if they haven't been effectively countered within 48 hours. It is now about 48 hours since Richard Clarke was given a platform to express his views without rebuttal on Meet the Press, and virtually all of the news on the issue has focussed on Dr. Rice's refusal to testify before the 9/11 Commission under oath. The impression is that Clarke is accountable, while the Bush Administration is not. And at this point the window of opportunity to alter the underlying impressions has closed. From this point on, no matter what happens, a lot of folks will see the contention that Bush contributed to the tragedy of 9/11 as credible. Since the impression is no longer even associated with Richard Clarke, undermining his credibility really won't have an impact on that conviction.
Politics is cruel, because it's a human institution, and constrained by human limitations. Playing the game of politics as though it's some abstract set of principles can be very disappointing. At this point the focus of the Republican campaign for the presidency has to be on sewing the impression they wish to create, rather than countering Richard Clarke. From a legal and ethical standpoint they still have an obligation to set the record straight, but there isn't much political purchase in it.
The good news (and it's very good news) is that the public still seems open to the notion that Bush has had a uniquely effective strategy opposing terrorism subsequent to 9/11, and Clarke has probably reached the zenith of his ability to influence attitudes and perceptions about the pre-9/11 effectiveness of the Bush Administration. Although Clarke expressed personal outrage about the Iraq strategy, and even suggested that this was really the reason he decided to begin his whistle-blowing campaign, he has really never given any coherent theory about why he opposes it. At least nothing that wasn't already part of the Left's lexicon. As a sort of glorified cop he really has no special expertise in foreign policy strategy, and he knows it. Hence there has been no narrative, and that's the primary weakness of the Democratic strategy regarding the 9/11 Commission. They may intend a "bait and switch," and have even been far more successful at the "bait" part of the strategy than they really have any right to be. But they have no way to carry off "the switch." In fact, they may have actually opened an opportunity for the Bush Administration to discuss Iraq in the context of the broader War on Terrorism.
There is, first of all, good news to report within Iraq. Recent polling suggests that most Iraqis support the notion of a democratic liberal government, and even credit the US with providing the opportunity. And there has also been evidence of a sea-change in the Middle East with regard to both Palestinian terrorism, and the ancien regimes that have been piling up wrath against the day of wrath.
Wretchard notes that the cancellation of the Arab League Summit probably reflects an unwillingness to adopt a pro-Hamas stance on the Yassin assassination. The "half empty" part of that development is, of course, that they have also chosen not to ratify a deal that was struck to launch a new reform movement, motivated by the fear that Bush has other Iraqs up his sleeve. Some recent inroads into the prospects of a Bush second term by the Copperheads have cast enough doubt on the US resolve to use its big stick that we lost some of its leverage.
And Steven Den Beste has a post up about an intriguing strategy by the Israelis that rests, at least partially, on the lattitude provided by the fear-induced recalculations among the Middle East autocrats. The implications of this go far beyond the relatively progressive attitudes being expressed by the Qadaffi and Assad offspring. As for the direct effect on Al Qaeda we have the Zarqawi letter, which recounts the effectiveness of US strategy in Iraq and just how much Al Qaeda is worried about it.
So I think the Democrats may have miscalculated, not because they didn't manage to sew some of the doubts they wanted to sew through their Clarke campaign, but because they can't really direct where the debate on Iraq will go from here. Having opened the debate about Iraq in a way that's not merely a rehash of the "he lied about WMD" canard it would make dazzling political sense for the Bush team to pick up the cudgel and beat the Copperheads silly with it. And by doing so they may actually erase impressions of Clarke's ersatz "credibility" without actually addressing Clarke at all.
Posted by Demosophist at March 30, 2004 10:21 AM | TrackBack