by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright February 7, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

atching his approval ratings sink below 50%, President George W. Bush decided it's time to respond to unanswered attacks by Democratic candidates, whose biting criticism finally took its toll. Bush watched his poll numbers drop from 60% to 49% in January alone, causing a change of strategy. Hammered on Iraq, the economy and a flurry of revelations about prewar intelligence, Bush seeks to reverse an ominous trend. “This is a signal that the president is going to go back on the offense,” said former GOP chairman Rich Bond, a key kitchen Cabinet advisor. Under pressure, Bush acquiesced, creating a bipartisan commission exploring, among other things, prewar intelligence failures. Bush told reporters he was “determined to figure out why” data was so far off about Saddam's alleged stockpiles of dangerous weapons and threat to U.S. national security.

      Bush faces a daunting task of rehabilitating credibility, after chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay delivered a scathing indictment of prewar intelligence that fingered Iraq as an implacable threat, prompting preemptive war. Another report by the Army War College didn't help matters, concluding, in no uncertain terms, the Iraq war hurt U.S. national security by spreading the military too thin and taking the focus off Osama bin Laden, the terrorist responsible for Sept. 11. Seeking to turn the corner, Bush accepted a no-holds-barred interview on NBC's “Meet The Press” with Tim Russert, hoping to answer critics. Getting access to Russert's audience cuts both ways: Six- million viewers will either help or worsen Bush's problems. Reciting the same old talking points hasn't helped Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Defense Secretary Donald M. Rumsfeld.

      While honeymoons don't last forever, it was a matter of time before Bush's approval ratings took a hit. Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's aggressive focus on Iraq helped Democrats—especially front-runner Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)—sharpen attacks on key campaign issues. Iraq promises to be Bush's make or break issue, since it's tied to busting the budget and slowing economic recovery—especially job creation. “I thought it [declining approval ratings] was going to happen when a Democratic nominee emerged,” said Matthew Dowd, a top Bush strategist, concerned that further declines could hurt chances of reelection. Going on “Meet The Press” poses problems for Bush: He must insist that the benefits of war outweigh the costs. But with casualties mounting, no weapons of mass destruction found and the budget badly out-of-whack, Bush has a lot of explaining to do.

      Adding to Bush's woes was CIA Director George J. Tenet's admission that Saddam never presented an “imminent threat” to U.S. national security. Tenet confessed that that prewar intelligence—already known to the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency—was based not on verifiable sources but unreliable claims by Ahmed Chalabi, the dubious head of the Iraqi National Congress. Tenet admitted the CIA allowed “fabricated” information from an “unreliable” Iraqi defector, recommended by Chalabi. That same individual provided much of the “intelligence” used in Powell's Feb. 5 presentation to the U.N. Security Council, claiming Saddam possessed WMD. Ahmed Chalabi, who currently sits on Iraq's Governing Council, was the same person who fleeced the Clinton administration for over $100 million for allegedly undermining Saddam's regime.

      Facing Russert on “Meet The Press,” Bush justified the war without the benefit of WMD. Cheney and Rumsfeld's insistence that more time is needed to find WMD flies in the face of Kay's report and hurts White House credibility. Yet telling Russert the war was worth it to free the Iraqi people from a vicious tyrant also carries inherent risks. Without the presence of WMD and urgent threat to national security, few Americans support risking U.S. troops. Whether Bush received bad intelligence or not, he justified the war to “democratize” Iraq and “transform” the Middle East. Tenet's recent admissions reveal that both the CIA and Pentagon used intelligence from unreliable sources. Whether, as Democratic candidates suggest, the White House juiced up intelligence to justify going to war is anyone's guess. One thing's for sure: Tenet must tender his resignation.

      Interviewed on “Meet The Press,” Bush still insists that Saddam was a dangerous mad man intent on building biological, chemical, and, yes, nuclear weapons. Kay's best evidence suggests otherwise. Telling Russert he intends to get to the bottom of prewar intelligence failures doesn't acknowledge that the CIA never fingered Iraq as an urgent threat to national security. Tenet, himself, deliberately used word “imminent” to further mask the true nature of Saddam's threat, giving Bush an out for preemptive war. Three facts impeach White House credibility: (1) Tenet relied on Ahmed Chalabi's bogus defector for prewar intelligence; (2) Tenet knew British claims about Iraq's purchase of uranium from Niger was false; and (3) Qadeer Hamza's [Saddam's alleged bomb-maker] total disappearance. Before the war, Hamza insisted with White House blessings that Saddam was dangerously close to an A-bomb.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.