This headline over at msnbc.com is a great example of one of George Lakoff's first rules of political rhetoric, that negating a frame only reinforces it.

The full headline is: Intel report: Iraq a ‘cause célèbre’ for extremists; President says NIE leak was political, denies war has worsened terrorism

By denying that the war has worsened terrorism, the President repeated the "Iraq war makes terrorism worse" frame. The net effect is that the denial falls away from the public consciousness and people only internalize the "Iraq war makes terrorism worse" frame.

This is one of the benefits of playing offense. It's much easier to deny an allegation (especially when it's true) than to re-frame the dialogue. So I say let the President try to deny the obvious as much as he wants. He will not only continue to lose credibility, but he will only reinforce something that the majority of Americans already knew on some level.

And besides, who are you going to believe: intelligence experts who study and actually fight terrorism or a dishonest politician who mislead the country into a quagmire in Iraq with no foreseeable exit strategy?