White House in crisis over 'Iraq lies' claims

President George W. Bush was braced for one of the toughest fights of his political life on Sept. 30 as a fierce controversy broke out over whether he has been misleading the US public over the worsening violence in Iraq. The crisis also rippled across the Atlantic with claims that the administration hid crucial Iraq intelligence from its British allies. Sparking the crisis was a series of leaks from a hard-hitting new book by the political journalist Bob Woodward, one of the two Washington Post reporters who broke the Watergate scandal that engulfed the Nixon administration three decades ago. The book lifts the lid on an administration in crisis, claiming that Bush and his top officials have deliberately covered up the seriousness of the violence in the war-torn country. Woodward has so far been sympathetic to the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq. In a "60 Minutes" interview aired on Oct. 1, Woodward accused Bush of keeping the real situation in Iraq secret from the US public and playing down the true level of violence. "There's public [information] and there's private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know," he says. His book, State of Denial, is also understood to say British Prime Minister Tony Blair was angry at discovering that Washington was keeping key intelligence on Iraq from Britain–even classifying reports based partly on contributions from British operatives as off-limits. In some cases, British personnel flying US planes in Iraq were denied access to pilots' manuals, the book reportedly alleges. Woodward's book says that insurgent attacks in Iraq are now running at a rate of about four an hour and that officials believe the situation will get worse next year. That allegation is particularly damaging to the administration, which has staked its reputation in mid-term Congressional elections on its ability to win the war. It also flies in the face of regular Republican claims that the situation in Iraq is improving. Woodward's book also provides a gripping insider's account of a White House deeply divided over Iraq. It shows that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been at odds with Bush over the war and that former White House chief of staff Andrew Card had backed the replacement of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld–but was overruled. It portrays Bush as determined to stick it out even if his only supporters are whittled down to his wife and the White House dog. "I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me," Woodward quotes Bush as having told top Republicans at a White House meeting. The book could not have come at a worse time for the Republican Party. The US is gearing up for vital elections and both parties are fighting on the issue of national security. That is usually a Republican strength, but Woodward's book will undermine the idea that the ruling party is best at prosecuting the war. Bush spokesman Tony Snow has denied one key allegation–that Rumsfeld no longer takes calls from Rice. "That is ridiculous," Snow said. The White House has also insisted that the war in Iraq remains a vital part of the wider war on terror. In his weekly radio address, Bush said that fighting Islamic militants was part of winning the struggle against terrorists. He also slammed Democrats and others who used a recently leaked intelligence report–which warned that invading Iraq had made the US more prone to terrorist attack–to score political points against Bush's Iraq policy. "Some in Washington have selectively quoted from this document to make the case that, by fighting the terrorists in Iraq, we are making our people less secure here at home. This argument buys into the enemy's propaganda." But it is now far from clear that such arguments are resonating with the public.