Jump to content

Poll: 1/3 Dems think Bush knew about 9-11 ahead of time.


DKW 86

Recommended Posts

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail

Just how crazy are the Dems?

A new poll on 9/11 indicates that they definitely have a paranoia problem.

May 15, 2007

MOST FAIR-MINDED readers will no doubt take me at my word when I say that a majority of Democrats in this country are out of their gourds.

But, on the off chance that a few cynics won't take my word for it, I offer you data. Rasmussen Reports, the public opinion outfit, recently asked voters whether President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. The findings? Well, here's how the research firm put it: "Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know and 26% are not sure."

1 in 3 Democrats believe that Bush was in on it somehow, and a majority of Democrats either believe that Bush knew about the attacks in advance or can't quite make up their minds.

There are only three ways to respond to this finding: It's absolutely true, in which case the paranoid style of American liberalism has reached a fevered crescendo. Or, option B, it's not true and we can stop paying attention to these kinds of polls. Or there's option C — it's a little of both.

My vote is for C. But before we get there, we should work through the ramifications of A and B.

We don't know what kind of motive respondents had in mind for Bush, but the most common version has Bush craftily enabling a terror attack as a way to whip up support for his foreign policy without too many questions.

The problem with rebutting this sort of allegation is that there are too many reasons why it's so stupid. It's like trying to explain to a 4-year-old why Superman isn't real. You can spend all day talking about how kryptonite just wouldn't work that way. Or you can just say, "It's make-believe."

Similarly, why try to explain that it's implausible that Bush was evil enough to let this happen — and clever enough to get away with it — yet incapable either morally or intellectually of doing it again? After all, if he's such a villainous super-genius to have paved the way for 9/11 without getting caught, why stop there? Democrats constantly insinuate that Bush plays politics with terror warnings on the assumption that the higher the terror level, the more support Bush has. Well, a couple of more 9/11s and Dick Cheney will finally be able to get that shiny Bill of Rights shredder he always wanted.

And, if Bush — who Democrats insist is a moron — is clever enough to greenlight one 9/11, why is Iraq such a blunder? Surely a James Bond villain like Bush would just plant some WMD?

No, the right response to the Rosie O'Donnell wing of the Democratic Party is "It's just make-believe." But if they really believe it, then liberals must stop calling themselves the "reality-based" party and stop objecting to the suggestion that they have a problem with being called anti-American. Because when 61% of Democrats polled consider it plausible or certain that the U.S. government would let this happen, well, "blame America first" doesn't really begin to cover it, does it?

So then there's option B — the poll is just wrong. This is quite plausible. Indeed, the poll is surely partly wrong. Many Democrats are probably merely saying that Bush is incompetent or that he failed to connect the dots or that they're just answering in a fit of pique. I'm game for option B. But if we're going to throw this poll away, I think liberals need to offer the same benefit of the doubt when it comes to data that are more convenient for them. For example, liberals have been dining out on polls showing that Fox News viewers, or Republicans generally, are more likely to believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Now, however flimsy, tendentious, equivocal or sparse you may think the evidence that Hussein had a hand in 9/11 may be, it's ironclad compared with the nugatory proof that Bush somehow permitted or condoned those attacks.

And then there's option C, which is most assuredly the reality. The poll is partly wrong or misleading, but it's also partly right and accurate. So maybe it's not 1 in 3 Democrats suffering from paranoid delusions. Maybe it's only 1 in 5 , or 1 in 10. In other words, the problem isn't as profound as the poll makes it sound. But that doesn't mean the Democratic Party doesn't have a serious problem.

Lets hope the poll is wrong and that the moonbats arent that numerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





This doesn't surprise me in the least. Bush derangement syndrome has reached epic proportions these days. Personally, I can't wait until Bush leaves office because I'm sick and tired of hearing about a) 9-11 conspiracy theories, b. Bush/Cheney lied about WMD's that got us stuck in Iraq, c) Bush blew up the levees in New Orleans, and d) how Bush/Cheney/Gonzalez had the 8 U.S attorneys fired because those 8 were about to "blow the lid" on Republican Congressmen, etc. etc. etc. How the Democratic Party continues to be viable when they have constituents like this is beyond me.

The Bush Administration has done a horrible job getting their message to the American people. The Bush Administration will go down in history as having the worst public relations people in a presidential cabinet. I thought this would change with Tony Snow, but apparently, it has not. At least the Clinton people would fight back against accusations like this. Unfortunately, the MO with the Bush team has been to not dignify these conspiracy theories with a response. As more people start to believe this nonsense, it would help the Bush team's cause to respond aggressively and put an end to this nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have "incompetent President fatigue." I dont think we have had one since 86 or 87 IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know which is worse for mankind. Bible thumping Creationist or Conspiracy Whacko Nutcase Liberals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know which is worse for mankind. Bible thumping Creationist or Conspiracy Whacko Nutcase Liberals.

You got a problem with Bible thumping Creationist?! How dare you come on this board and offend my faith and beliefs. I demand you make a public apology and be fired from your job.

Drew, you hit the nail on the head. There are times when you need to not dignify ignorant claims or remarks with a response, but the Bush administration took "turn the other cheek" too much to heart. How many times have we posted the pre-9/11 quotes of all the Democrat leaders that said that Iraq had WMDs and was a national security threat? Yet, because the dems and especially the Clintons are experts in countering and then spinning and crap that comes at them, they come out smelling like a bed of roses.

I am starting to be one of those "alienated" voters. I dare any person that supports any political party prove to me that their party is head and shoulders above the others. Heck, I dare somebody to show me an actual spotless DC politician for that matter. Our federal elections have know come down to picking the lesser of two evils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheney knew for sure. Bush may have been left out of the loop.

I gotta ask, how does anyone with an above room temp IQ come to that conclusion? Or even has that thought enter your mind ? Seriously. :no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm appalled that anyone would think Bush might be that competent. B)

Don't fall out of your chair, but for once I'm inclined to agree here! How is it that so many day in and day out vilify Bush for being such an idiot, then turn right around and claim he was some how 'in' on the 9/11 attacks?

Sorry folks, but you Bush haters can't have it both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheney knew for sure. Bush may have been left out of the loop.

I gotta ask, how does anyone with an above room temp IQ come to that conclusion? Or even has that thought enter your mind ? Seriously. :no:

good question, thta deserves an answer.

Gut feeling from the get-go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheney knew for sure. Bush may have been left out of the loop.

I gotta ask, how does anyone with an above room temp IQ come to that conclusion? Or even has that thought enter your mind ? Seriously. :no:

good question, thta deserves an answer.

Gut feeling from the get-go.

And when you are a bottomfeeder, your gut fills up with, well what ever is on the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheney knew for sure. Bush may have been left out of the loop.

I gotta ask, how does anyone with an above room temp IQ come to that conclusion? Or even has that thought enter your mind ? Seriously. :no:

good question, thta deserves an answer.

Gut feeling from the get-go.

That's a response, but not an answer to the question. Based on what is this ' gut feeling ' ? There's certainly nothing in Cheney's past ( or Bush's ) which would suggest they'd sit idly by and watch such an attack play itself out. High treason is what you're suggesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheney knew for sure. Bush may have been left out of the loop.

I gotta ask, how does anyone with an above room temp IQ come to that conclusion? Or even has that thought enter your mind ? Seriously. :no:

good question, thta deserves an answer.

Gut feeling from the get-go.

And when you are a bottomfeeder, your gut fills up with, well what ever is on the bottom.

:roflol:

That's pathetic. In your case I would expect nothing less.

A bottomfeeder has more than one definition. In my case, it's buy low and sell high.

http://www.bottomfeeder.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheney knew for sure. Bush may have been left out of the loop.

I gotta ask, how does anyone with an above room temp IQ come to that conclusion? Or even has that thought enter your mind ? Seriously. :no:

good question, thta deserves an answer.

Gut feeling from the get-go.

And when you are a bottomfeeder, your gut fills up with, well what ever is on the bottom.

:roflol:

That's pathetic. .In your case I would expect nothing less

A bottomfeeder has more than one definition. In my case, it's buy low and sell high.

http://www.bottomfeeder.com/

Bottomfeeders sit on the bottom and filter fish $hit. In your case I would expect nothing less. more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...