A Matter of Perception
Remember Gary Condit? He's the married California congressman who had the affair with Chandra Levy, the government intern who went missing.

During the course of the Levy investigation, Condit did everything possible to make himself appear guilty. He initially denied any romantic involvement with intern, stonewalled the police, was callous towards her parents, and was just an all around evasive jerk with the press. And the more he denied being responsible for her disappearance, the more the rest of us became convinced he had something to hide. His gross mishandling of the matter eventually cost him his reelection bid.

Condit was eventually cleared of involvement in the Levy murder, and police now have a pretty good idea of who was responsible. But how many people care--or even know--that the congressman was innocent? Not a whole lot. In the public's mind he will always be held responsible for the death of that young woman.

Like Gary Condit, George Bush appears to be doing everything possible to make it appear he has something to hide regarding 9/11. Until recently, no reasonable Americans held him in way responsible for somehow being negligent and allowing those attacks to occur on his watch. After all, the hijackers were meticulous in their planning and equally methodical in their follow through.

So how has the Bush Administration handled the 9/11 commission's investigation? By taking a page from the Gary Condit playbook.

First, the White House fought extending the Commission's life past its original
But under pressure from not only democrats but fellow republicans, Bush came out and said it was important to let them do their job. Their mandate was thus extended.

After Richard Clarke's bombshells, the White House initially wouldn't allow Condi Rice to testify. Oh, absolutely she would be able to refute Clarke, but letting her testify under oath would set a bad precedent. Again, it was only after a massive firestorm of controversy that the Bush people dropped their opposition.

Rice has said repeatedly that she and Bush were well aware of the threat posed by terrorists, and the matter was a top priority. Then about a week ago we discover that she was scheduled to deliver a speech 9/11/2001 about national security. The address supposedly makes minimal mention of bin Laden and Al Qaeda, instead concentrating on the growing threat of ballistic missiles for rogue states such as Iraq and North Korea. Again, rather than allowing the matter to die a quick death, the White House is prolonging the controversy by blocking the release of the full text of Rice's speech.

But the absolute kicker was yesterday's revelation of an August 8 CIA memo warning that bin Laden wanted to strike within the United States itself. Again, the White House's position is that this memo is mostly "background" material and of no real value to the investigation. And because it is so utterly without value, the White House was keeping the document classified.

The White House now says the memo will be declassified, but again, it took a massive amount of public pressure to force their hand.

Sometimes actual guilt or innocence is irrelevant. What matters is the perception of guilt or innocence.

________________________________________________

----------Mike Luckovich, Atlanta Journal-Constitution