Zogby just did a poll which has barely been reported in the media. I wonder why. I guess these considerations seem petty and I’ll get another blizzard of hate mail for noting it. But Zogby is one of the best pollsters we have; and he’s no conservative. His poll found that when voters were asked who they would prefer to be president in a crisis like this one, they prefer Bush to Clinton by 72 to 20 percent. Now of course this reflects a natural rally-round-our prez attitude. But its margin is striking, no? I’ve also been struck anecdotally by how many liberal friends of mine have quietly noted that at times like these, they are half-glad the Republicans are in office. Me too. Except, today at least, for Dennis Hastert.
WOOLSEY ON CLINTON: “The other, less generous possibility is that the Clinton administration was engaged here in its trademark behavior of focusing first and foremost on spin, expectation-adjustment, and short-term public relations, and deriving policy therefrom. If you assume that all terrorism flows from loose networks and not state action, then you will usually be able to find at least someone who was involved in a terrorist attack to convict. You can then claim success, get some good press and avoid confronting a state. The alternative approach–a thorough search for any state actor–presents two PR risks, neither attractive. If you find no state actor, there might be the appearance of an investigative failure. If, on the other hand, you find that a state was involved, you might then risk confrontation, even conflict, and possibly body bags on the evening news.”- James Woolsey, the Wall Street Journal today. Woolsey takes Bush I to task too. His broader argument about what kind of evidence we need to convict a state of sponsoring terrorism strikes me as an important one.
LETTERS: Maggie Gallagher replies.
The Dish 