Another insidious Karl Rove strategy?

The conventional wisdom is that the book promotion testimony of Richard Clarke has put the White House on the defensive and called into question President Bush’s record on the war on terrorism. But slowly the counter-intuitive theory is taking shape that, in the long run, keeping the focus on terrorism helps Bush. Here’s Kate O’Beirne on The Capital Gang this past weekend:

SHIELDS: Kate O'Beirne, has Richard Clarke's testimony seriously damaged President Bush's credibility as a fighter against terrorism?

KATE O'BEIRNE, CAPITAL GANG: Mark, it certainly seemed this week that the White House disagrees with me when I say that I think, overall, on balance, the president will be helped by all of this attention to how he handled terrorism both pre and post-9/11. The question this November is -- the relevant question on the topic -- who is going to be tougher on fighting terrorism, President Bush or John Kerry? Polls tell us that by a very wide margin, the public consistently thinks they can expect George Bush to be much tougher.

I think Richard Clarke, the single point he's making -- he hurt his own credibility by not being willing to criticize the Clinton administration. So the single point he winds up making is that George Bush should have done in eight months what the Clinton administration failed to do in eight years. And on its face, that's a ridiculous proposition.

Here’s at least one poll indicating that Bush still has a double-digit lead over the Democratic challenger on defense and terrorism. If this is the defining issue going into November, Bush wins big. This is a fact not lost on Robert Musil:

Could it be that Democrats and the media hurt John Kerry by moving the public's mind away from the economy by making a broo-hah-hah over terrorism - including much criticism of Bush?

Corollary question: Is Karl Rove pulling a huge rope-a-dope with Condi Rice’s pending testimony before the 9/11 Commission? Is the strategy to keep the story alive, build it up, so that Dr. Rice can confute Clarke’s self-serving testimony in the most public way imaginable? Maybe!