WASHINGTON: Shifting stories and new revelations concerning the Bush administration’s prewar allegations about Iraq’s nuclear programme are creating the most serious challenge to President Bush’s credibility since he took office — and perhaps since he entered politics.
Throughout his career, Bush’s reputation as a plain-spoken “straight-shooter” has been central to his political appeal. But Bush and his aides have provided an opening for Democrats to assail that reputation through their tangled efforts to explain why his State of the Union address in January contained an accusation that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium in Africa, a charge the administration now says it cannot prove and should not have included in the speech.
From both Capitol Hill and the campaign trail, Democrats are questioning the administration’s veracity more aggressively than at any point in Bush’s term — using incendiary phrases including “credibility gap” and “cover up” that attempt to link Bush to other presidents who lost the nation’s trust, such as Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.
“This administration has displayed a disregard for the truth while engaging in a pattern of deception, running from the war in Iraq to the state of the nation’s economy, its environment and its schools,” Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean charged on Friday.
Polls don’t suggest that Bush is yet facing public doubts about his honesty nearly as pervasive as confronted those Vietnam-era presidents or Bill Clinton. But some recent surveys indicate growing skepticism about the reliability of Bush’s word, particularly in the case he made for war against Iraq.
“This is the roughest patch Bush has faced in terms of his credibility,” said Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas. “He has lost his virginity on this issue now, regardless of what happens going forward. He will never be quite back to that squeaky clean, straight-shooting paragon of integrity he could claim before this.”
Bush, evoking archetypes of the old West, has long cultivated an image as a man who doesn’t say much but means deeply what he says. In his victory over Al Gore in 2000, Bush played off the doubts many voters held about the veracity of both the then-vice president and Clinton. “I will repair the broken bonds of trust between Americans and their government,” Bush declared.
The perception of honesty has been vital to Bush’s appeal, Buchanan said. “He doesn’t bring the rhetorical polish that others do. So what he brings to the table is precisely that straight-shooter authenticity and integrity.”
But over the last three weeks, Bush and his aides have found themselves in a bog of fluctuating explanations and proliferating questions about the inclusion in the State of the Union of what White House officials often deride as just 16 words: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Ominously for the White House, in a CNN/Time poll released this week, just 47 per cent described Bush as “a leader you can trust.”—Dawn/LAT-WP News Service (c) Los Angeles Times