Bush’s Secret Storm By E. J. Dionne Jr.

President Bush had two big things going for him in this year’s election. He was seen by a majority of Americans as a straight shooter. And he was viewed as the natural leader in the war on terrorism. Now both perceptions are in jeopardy. That explains the ferocity of the White House attack on Richard Clarke.

But the attack on Clarke, the White House’s former anti-terrorism expert, could prove to be the fatal mistake of the Bush campaign. Instead of undermining Clarke’s credibility, the White House has called its own into question.

It is also calling new attention to the administration’s standard operating procedure since Sept. 11, 2001: Do whatever is necessary to intimidate and undercut all who raise questions about the president’s handling of terrorism, answer as few of those questions as possible and keep as many secrets as you can.

That is why the Clarke story just keeps getting bigger. …

Recall that in May 2002, word leaked that Bush had received an intelligence briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, suggesting that Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network was plotting to hijack U.S. airliners. Democrats jumped on the news. … Daschle and Gephardt were trashed. Vice President Cheney denounced ”incendiary” commentary by opposition politicians and declared that such politically incorrect thoughts were ”thoroughly irresponsible and totally unworthy of national leaders in a time of war.”

And the questions abated.

This time, the Bush administration pulled the same levers to silence Clarke — and the questions didn’t stop. On the contrary, inconsistencies in the administration’s pre-Sept. 11 story were, finally, big news. …

”Secrecy can confer a form of power without responsibility about which democratic societies must be vigilant.” [declared Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who died a year ago this week.] The bitterness of last week is explained by the mischiefs of partisanship, but even more by the costs of secrecy.