The apparent fact that Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi’s speech was written by Bush campaign and White House aides, isn’t going away quietly.
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said in a letter to Bush that the report in Thursday’s Washington Post raised doubts about Allawi’s optimistic assertions on Iraqi reconstruction efforts and the prospect for elections.
“To learn that this was not an independent view, but one that was massaged by your campaign operatives, jaundices the speech and reduces the credibility of his remarks,” Feinstein said. “I hope that you’ll let me know whether these claims are accurate.”
The White House had no immediate comment on Feinstein’s letter or the Post article.
No, of course not.
But when the White House does decide to comment, there are a whole lot of questions for them to answer.
Interestingly, the campaign seems to be distancing itself from the aide who was directly involved. In other words, it’s typical Bush politics: hang the loyal culprit out to dry and pretend you’ve never heard of the guy.
The Post piece specifically referenced Dan Senor’s involvement with the Allawi speech.
[A]dministration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the prime minister was coached and aided by the U.S. government, its allies and friends of the administration. Among them was Dan Senor, former spokesman for the CPA who has more recently represented the Bush campaign in media appearances. Senor, who has denied writing the speech, sent Allawi recommended phrases. He also helped Allawi rehearse in New York last week, officials said. Senor declined to comment.
Yesterday, however, it was “Dan who?”
Bush-Cheney spokesman Scott Stanzel said Senor did not work for the campaign, though he acknowledged that campaign staff direct media outlets to Senor for interviews.
That’s not good enough. If the same guy who’s representing the campaign in the media is writing a speech for the interim Iraqi prime minister and coaching him on delivery, the administration needs to offer some kind of explanation.
At this point, we’re still working on anonymous sources talking to the Washington Post and nothing’s been confirmed elsewhere. But let’s just assume it’s true, for the sake of conversation.
First, there’s a political problem, as it’s pretty obvious Bush was using Allawi as a campaign prop. Second, there’s a foreign policy problem, as Allawi’s credibility is undermined (here and in Iraq) if he’s perceived as a stooge not only for the Bush administration, but also for the Bush campaign.
And third, isn’t there some kind of law about U.S. officials coordinating campaign activities with foreign governments? Wouldn’t this be a fairly blatant example of this occurring?