# Posted 2:12 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

OUCH! Matt Yglesias has some pretty harsh words for OxBlog because of its declaration that there isn't much new about Richard Clarke's allegations. Now, I didn't mean to suggest that what Clarke said was false or that it doesn't cast doubt on the competence of the Bush administration. But Clarke doesn't add much to the story that the media has been telling for quite some time now about the way this Administration works. Thus, I think it's interesting that Matt

detect[s] a lot of optimism that the latest Richard Clarke stuff may drive the stake through Bushism. Certainly, I hope so. Then again, by my lights Bush should have been done for long, long ago. Personally, I've gotten my hopes up far too many times that one thing or another would -- at last -- finish off the man's reputation and support. Nevertheless, nothing ever really seems to stick. I hope I'm wrong, but fear otherwise.

Actually, lots of things stick. The media has been very consistent in portraying Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. as militant ideologues with only a minimal interest in the facts (a portrayal that I think has a lot of substance to it). And there seems to be a consensus that the Bush Administration is fundamentally incapable of telling the truth about its tax or budget programs. (Ditto.)

But what I think Matt is driving at when he says that "nothing ever really seems to stick" is that Bush has pretty good approval ratings and is pulling even with Kerry in the polls. If things stuck, the average American voter would have an overwhelming desire to punish Bush in November. But that's just not the case. Why? One might point to the fact that voters trust the Republicans far more than they do the Democrats when it comes to national security. But that just begs the question. Why don't revelations such as Clarke's lead voters to trust the Democrats instead? I don't have a definitive answer for that one, but I think it has to do with the fact that the Democrats don't seem to know what their own foreign policy is.

Anyhow, I'm sure we'll have lots more chances to discuss the issue since the White House has now launched an aggressive counterattack against Clarke. For more on Clarke, take a look at TPM, where Josh Marshall is blasting both the NYT's soft coverage of his allegations and Condi's improbable account of what was really going on at the NSC.

Now, I don't put much stock in the administration's efforts to discredit Clarke or cover its exposed posterior. But when it comes down to getting votes, I think there are only two questions that really matter: Did Bush ignore (and then withhold) compelling evidence that Al Qaeda was preparing a major attack? And did Bush knowingly lie about Iraq's possession of chemical and biological (not nuclear) weapons? Unless Clarke can answer one or both of those questions in the affirmative, his revelations won't amount to much more than a very loud footnote. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion