According to a Rasmussen poll released today, just 39 percent of Democrats in this country say they are certain that President Bush did not know about the 9/11 attacks before they happened. Thirty-five percent of Democrats said they believe Bush did know, 26 percent are uncertain. Independents and Republicans are far more likely to disbelieve the conspiracy nonsense.
Frightening stuff.
It's really sad to what degree the left-dominated media has allowed the "truther" movement to gain such wide currency in our marketplace of ideas. You can bet if a Democrat had been president, the left in this country would not be so similarly deluded about 9/11.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Thanks alot Rosie! "T
May 4, 2007 - 16:09 ET by MightyMouthThanks alot Rosie!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I guess her stupid rantings
May 4, 2007 - 18:52 ET by terrigI guess her stupid rantings to those who are the brainless fools in her audience and those who watch her at home has finally sunk in. This is the same crowd who thinks "Jerry Springer" is quality tv.
Why do the 60% come here to
May 4, 2007 - 16:13 ET by Roger the ShrubberWhy do the 60% come here to Newsbusters?
Newsbusters is a threat to th
May 4, 2007 - 16:30 ET by ForeverOnTheRightNewsbusters is a threat to their otherwise placid otherworldly reality.
Well if Bush was warned about
May 4, 2007 - 16:30 ET by squarehead67Well if Bush was warned about the potential of an attack…..Clinton would have been the one that warned him……after all they were training under Clinton watch!
You can bet if a Democrat had
May 4, 2007 - 16:36 ET by bigtimerYou can bet if a Democrat had been president, the left in this country would not be so similarly deluded about 9/11.
So right you are, they would still be having parades after the capture of Saddam, let alone his hanging.
Mission Accomplished would of been all over the place.
On top of that, if they did look for blame or conspiracy, it would of still been the previous President Bush's fault...or maybe even Reagan.
I disagree that it's MSM do
May 4, 2007 - 16:48 ET by Night WatchmanI disagree that it's MSM doing. I have a friend who hates Dems and
Repubs (and doesn't vote, I wonder why) who on 9-12-01 said Bush was
behind it. No way could they have go to him that quick. And, I never
saw NTY or any other MSM say Bush knew.
Some people just believe the most wild stuff, like the ER removing mice
from people. You know that never happens, but some people have a
friend, who has a friend who works at the hospital and they swear by
it-- especially if it's a famous person's mouse removed.
Some people are just magica
May 4, 2007 - 16:52 ET by Matthew SheffieldSome people are just magical thinkers regardless of party. But it's telling that there are significantly more of them who are Democrats than Republicans or independents.
I always thought it was gerbils as well.
Gerbils and Richard Gere...
Matthew,How sad that these ma
May 4, 2007 - 21:17 ET by Scout FinchMatthew,
How sad that these magical thinkers are possible (probable) voters in 2008. Wow that sucks.
This represents the conflicte
May 4, 2007 - 17:15 ET by mattmThis represents the conflicted state caused by BDS among the Left. On the one hand Bush is too dumb to know anything, on the other hand he's an evil schemer. The rest of them can't make up their mind.
26 percent are uncertainPol
May 4, 2007 - 17:33 ET by JDW26 percent are uncertain
Polls show leaders in each party to be essentially tied in terms of percentage. Conservatives support the war, and if we average supporters of the war within the top two, we will find Iraq wins.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Who was the Nazi propaganis
May 4, 2007 - 18:35 ET by motherbeltWho was the Nazi propaganist who said if you tell a lie often enough, eventually people will believe it's true?
They don't do polls asking people if they think Bill Clinton was responsible for 9/11 because he did nothing after the first WTC attack and the other terrorist attacks. Why not? Because they don't care.
Why do they keep doing these periodic polls asking this question? Could it be to evaluate the success of the propaganda campaign they have been operating?
Joseph Goebbels was the Naz
May 4, 2007 - 19:09 ET by Night WatchmanJoseph Goebbels was the Nazi in charge of propaganda. Time Magazine always refered to him as "club foot' Joesph Goebbels." Oh the pre PC days. FYI time.com lets you surf back to 1918 for free.
If 9-11 happen in 98, urban legend would have Clinton in on it. In 2001
there is no feasible connection to him. Many of the same people (Bush
knew) say the moon walk was a scam.
Bush didn't know about 911, but Clinton knew about Cole
May 4, 2007 - 20:41 ET by blackrain4xmasA bigger story (for me) is that Clinton knew in advance and
specifically of the USS Cole attack. The crew was briefed, they said so
in their handwritten testimony, and still Clinton ordered a whodunnit
investigation that-when the report finally came out-didn't focus on
whodunnit. Read the crew's account for yourself, and then tell me that
Clinton 1) wasn't sure it was UBL, and 2) he didn't blow off the whole
thing so as to give political cover to Gore who was lower on nat sec
issues in polls than W.
http://www.scottmalensek.com/coledocs/USS%20ColeNavalIntelDocsARE%20CLASSIFIED%20se%20big%20redacted%20portion%20of%20NCIS%20stuff%20SEC%2034%20the%20big%20one.JPG
http://www.scottmalensek.com/coledocs/USSCole%20first%20hand%20acct%20cites%20Bin%20Laden%20briefing%202%20mos%20earlier%20second%20rpt.JPG
http://www.scottmalensek.com/coledocs/USSCole%20first%20hand%20acct%20cites%20Bin%20Laden%20briefing%202%20mos%20earlier%20third%20rpt.JPG
http://www.scottmalensek.com/coledocs/USSCole%20first%20hand%20acct%20cites%20Bin%20Laden%20briefing%202%20mos%20earlier.JPG
http://www.scottmalensek.com/coledocs/USSCole%20first%20hand%20acct%20cites%20UBL%20boat%20bomb.JPG
http://www.scottmalensek.com/coledocs/USSCole%20first%20hand%20acct%20cites%20UBL%20kamikaze%20boat%20bomb.JPG
Bush, could have done more, but most of the hijackers were stopped
by security anyway. The flaw thus lies in the system (as the 911
Commission agrees). However, Clinton damn well knew that UBL was behind
the Cole, and he deliberately chose not to do anything. The only reason
for that is cowardice, self-serving ego/legacy over national duty and
oath, or that he put party politics before patriotism.
Noooooo, Bill Clinton would NEVER do such a thing, right? (geeesh)
Great stuff Blackrain
May 6, 2007 - 14:22 ET by acumenGreat stuff Blackrain. Thank you. It's amazing what having a media in your pocket can do for a "man" like Clinton.
The way to prevent tin foil c
May 5, 2007 - 15:48 ET by ding7777The way to prevent tin foil conspiricies was for the government to quickly expose the orgins of 9/11. Bush failed to this. BIG TIME.
ding7777,
May 5, 2007 - 15:59 ET by hydrodynDMding7777,
Your criticism of the Bush administration suggests that you have insight (I assume professional) into how something like a post 9/11 investigation would be handled.
So how exactly - in your opinion - did Bush drop the ball "BIG TIME" with regard to “quickly" exposing the origins of 9/11?
It could be BDS
May 5, 2007 - 16:10 ET by RJOf course, it could be that many on the left who answered as they did don't really believe it. They could be taking the opportunity to express their frustrated hate toward President Bush. It's well documented, that when it comes to Bush, BDS supercedes critical thinking. Ding here is an excellent example.
RJ, That's what I assumed a
May 5, 2007 - 16:18 ET by hydrodynDMRJ,
That's what I assumed at first - just another excuse to criticize Bush for something.
But I figured I'd him them the benefit of the doubt and see if his comment was based on some reasonable argument and not just an emotional "knee-jerk" reaction.
hydrodynDM - Bush refused to
May 5, 2007 - 18:40 ET by ding7777hydrodynDM -
Bush refused to forcefully articulate that the 15 hijackers had nothing to do with Saddam (to the contrary, Bush conflated the Saddam/9-11 angle for almost 2 years)
Bush intially opposed the 9/11 commission
Once Bush accepted the 9/11 commission, he appointed members instead of having a "blue ribbon" independent panel
Bush put the 9/11 commission on a tight dead line with a small budget
Bush stonewalled the commission, forcing the commssion to use subpoenas
Bush refused to testify under oath and in public
Bush refused to be "interviewed" without Cheney at his side
Bush refused that a transcript be made of his "interview"
The list goes on... as to the conspiracies
ding7777
May 5, 2007 - 18:46 ET by shawn228Ding some of your comments I agree with, some i don't, but how does any of your statements tie to Bush's knowledge of 911?
shawn228 - I wasn't showing
May 5, 2007 - 19:11 ET by ding7777shawn228 - I wasn't showing Bush's knowledge of 9/11. I was showing how Bush contributed to the 9/11 conspiracies by not forcefully exposing the origins of 9/11.
People can question if
May 5, 2007 - 19:38 ET by shawn228People can question if Bush could have done more to prevent 911, same can be said of Clinton, but for someon to think Bush might have known about 911 before it happenned is silly.
Right shawn.
May 5, 2007 - 19:50 ET by bigtimerRight shawn.
shawn228 - Bush deserves cre
May 5, 2007 - 20:01 ET by ding7777shawn228 - Bush deserves credit for allowing the 9/11 conspiracies to come to fruitation. He did more to keep hidden the origins of 9/11 than he did to expose them.
Do you remember Kenndy's assasination? Oswald's "magic bullet" put forth by Arlen Specter created more conspiracies than it did to expose the origins of the assasination.
Ding
May 5, 2007 - 23:47 ET by shawn228Okay, Ding. What do you think happenned 911? Were we attacked by radicals or someone else Bush is protecting?
shawn228 - I said Bush is res
May 6, 2007 - 10:13 ET by ding7777shawn228 - I said Bush is responsible for many of the tin foil conspracies getting traction (and I have already said why - read upthread)
you own theory doesn't work, ding
May 6, 2007 - 10:30 ET by RJding, even if we grant all your points about Bush (I don't) your argument doesn't get any "traction" either. Conspiracy theorists are a wacky bunch, and they don't need help getting started.
As I said elsewhere, it's likely that many who now claim to accept the possibility of the tin foil theories suffer from BDS, and are just taking the opportunity to take another crack at a President they hate.
Ding
May 6, 2007 - 11:50 ET by shawn228Ding, I realize what you said, I'm asking once again "what do you think happenned on 911?
That's funny, the only pers
May 5, 2007 - 23:59 ET by JerryThat's funny, the only person I remember hiding stuff about 9/11 was Sandy "Pant-load" Berger. How much more blatant can you get than stuffing HIGHLY CLASSIFIED documents into your pants to keep the 9/11 commission from getting them? What exactly did President Bush do to keep the origins of 9/11 hidden?
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Jerry - Berger took copies
May 6, 2007 - 10:08 ET by ding7777Jerry - Berger took copies of the Millennium Alert After Action Review report.
The commission already had the Millennium Alert Report and also the After Action Review of that report.
Yeah, sure, ding
May 6, 2007 - 10:23 ET by RJAnd you know that's all a thief took because the thief said so? Yeah, sure.
"He could not be the loo
May 6, 2007 - 10:26 ET by"He could not be the lookout he was blind" Inspector Cluso
"How do you know he was blind?"
"He tuld me so, then his minkey treed to bit me"
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Funny, botg
May 6, 2007 - 14:18 ET by RJHa. Ding as Inspector Cluso.
Also funny is that we both posted at the same time that Ding was willing to take the word of a thief.
The head of National Archives said we will NEVER know
May 6, 2007 - 22:42 ET by SportPoliticsThe head of National Archives said we will NEVER know what Sandy Berger took, and we cannot determine what it all was.
That was on TV, and the HEAD GUY of National Archives said so himself, flat out to the camera.
See FoxNews > Scissors, Socks, Paper - The Sandy Berger Caper.
We do not yet know what all Sandy Berger stole from the National Archives, no matter how many times the left wing repeats their uninformed opinion. The Head Master of the Archives has spoken.
RJ - How about Worldnet D
May 6, 2007 - 20:40 ET by ding7777RJ - How about Worldnet Daily, is that an ok site for you?
What's your point, ding?
May 6, 2007 - 20:49 ET by RJWhat's your point, ding?
RJ - just answering your ques
May 6, 2007 - 21:00 ET by ding7777RJ - just answering your question
Ding, you still here? I thou
May 6, 2007 - 21:05 ET by Free StinkerDing, you still here?
I thought you were hiding to avoid answering botg's question or reading the citations I thoughtfully provided you.
If I asked a question, ding,
May 6, 2007 - 21:06 ET by RJIf I asked a question, ding, it was why you take a thief's word for what he stole. Your link did nothing to answer that.
No
May 6, 2007 - 21:17 ET by Mr. BishopIt actually raised more questions. His answer truly answered nothing, raised my questions, and also showed that ding did not read the entire article. If he had, he would also see wherein the article, it says that Berger took emails as well, and is suspect of taking more due to his incredibly frequent bathroom breaks (averaged ever 30 minutes, with quite a number of un-monitored private calls before making his way to the bathroom -- multiple times).
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
I know, MrB. I'm just egging ding on
May 6, 2007 - 21:20 ET by RJI know, MrB. You're right, of course. I'm just egging ding on. As usual his position is ridiculous.
Unique, annotated versions.
May 6, 2007 - 21:35 ET by dahliatraversUnique, annotated versions. Not photocopies, originals. They were removed and some were never returned or accounted for.
To this day, we do not know why he did this or what he was trying to hide.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4189-2004Jul21_2.html
Berger took copies of the
May 6, 2007 - 10:23 ET byBerger took copies of the Millennium Alert After Action Review report
and you know this how?
1 a thief told you?
2 you were there?
3 an audit failed to locate these documents? (what missing documents weren't checked)
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
botg - see above reply to RJ
May 6, 2007 - 20:42 ET by ding7777botg - see above reply to RJ or go here
see number 3 above and the ar
May 6, 2007 - 20:51 ET bysee number 3 above and the article does not state where the info came from
this 'could be' the distraction but without evidence i'll leave it at that
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
More
May 6, 2007 - 21:14 ET by Mr. BishopBerger took more then just copies of the Milleniom Alert After Action Review. The article you supplied says as much. He took emails, and is suspected of taking more -- also according to the article in which you supplied.
Also, in the article, the following is stated, "During the visit, Berger is reported to have hidden four documents in his pockets, all versions of the Millennium Alert After Action Review." I quote this sentence because I have to ask. "If" the 9-11 Commission had a copy, as you claim they did (which I do not know, but will take your word for it), they would have the final draft of the After Action Review, not anything else. What information on the draft copies of the After Action Review, would be incriminating, that he would take a prison sentence, in order to protect Bill Clinton from? Short of Berger actually tell us, we shall never know -- Berger destroyed those copies -- he also admits to that in the article you provided.
This also begs the question, what else has Berger done? Berger stated, "... if someone had always been with him, he would not have taken any documents." For a man who was the National Security Advisory to President Clinton, who had ample time of privacy during his 4-years in the White House, his inability to treat classified information with the respect it deserves, and his inability to follow the law, as well as his obvious theft of documents -- what else did he do in the White House? Why hasn't there been a Congressional Inquisition into the actions of Sandy Berger, and what he might have done in the White House during his 4 years there, as they are treating Gonzales on firing 8 of his employees?
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Ding, Ding, Ding... I
May 6, 2007 - 21:22 ET by JerryDing, Ding, Ding... I don't think Sandy would ruin his reputation, throw away his future, and risk jail time, just to pilfer a copy of something the commission already had, do you? If that truly is the case, then Sandy has got to be the stupidest person on the planet, and if that's the case, it is yet another indictment against the judgement of the person who made him national security advisor.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Ding7777, Your
May 6, 2007 - 14:08 ET by hydrodynDMDing7777,
Your point is well taken – that if the Bush administration
had been more careful or forthcoming or whatever, it would have helped to curb
some of the doubt that seeds conspiracy theories.
However, I think you are being too harsh. You will grant
that 9/11 was a unique event in the history of our nation and, unlike you, I’m
not as quick to criticize the president for how he handled the process of
informing the public about what happened. If anything, I recall being somewhat
surprised at how quickly they had pinpointed the group behind the attacks.
The criticisms you point out about the 9/11 Commission seem
to be exactly the kinds of things that someone who doesn’t like Bush would carp
on. That’s not to say they aren’t worth looking into but …
Let’s say that a family’s house burns down in some
neighborhood somewhere. The neighbors who like they guy can praise him for
saving his family and for having home insurance but the neighbors who dislike
him will criticize him for losing the family pet, for letting the fire happen
in the first place. They might speculate that he didn’t check the batteries in
his smoke detectors that he hadn’t rehearsed an escape plan with his family
like he should have.
My point is, when something as severe and unique as 9/11
happens, mistakes are going to be made during and after because it’s not the
kind of thing that happens on a regular basis. Criticism is expected. But let
me ask you – is your criticism motivated by a hope that if this happens again,
it will be handled better or is it simply motivated by a need to view Bush is
the worst possible light?
hydrodynDM - Saddam being in
May 6, 2007 - 20:31 ET by ding7777hydrodynDM - Saddam being involved with 9/11 is a conspiracy. And it was Bush and his administration, by conflating 9/11 with Saddam, who created that conspiracy.
It had nothing to with how servere or horrible 9/11 was. The conflation was deliberate and ongoing - it took Bush 2 years to explicitly state that Saddam was not involved in 9/11 -
I agree with you that publicly airing his administration's pre-9/11 unreadiness is one reason Bush did not support the 9/11 Commission, but it is not the only reason.
Bush needed the 9/11 link to get his Iraq War on. Bush created the conspiracy. And the 9/11 Commission would prove that Saddam had no involvement with 9/11.
You can lead a Ding to eviden
May 6, 2007 - 20:41 ET byYou can lead a Ding to evidence but ya can't make him think
http://newsbusters.org/node/11907
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
botg - Saddam/9-11 link is a
May 6, 2007 - 20:46 ET by ding7777botg - Saddam/9-11 link is a Bush created conspiracy. Where's your evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11?
Ding, I don't know about 9
May 6, 2007 - 20:51 ET by Free StinkerDing, I don't know about 9/11, but Saddam was sure involved with terrorists!
And I'll bet you never read a single one of these citations.
Uh oh. Looks like someone p
May 6, 2007 - 21:14 ET by dahliatraversUh oh. Looks like someone provoked Free again.
Just bludgeoning Ding XXL b
May 6, 2007 - 21:20 ET by Free StinkerJust bludgeoning Ding XXL bag of facts! ;-)
Notice he doesn't respond?
when exactly did Bush say Sad
May 6, 2007 - 20:55 ET bywhen exactly did Bush say Sadamn was directly invovled in 911?
as Free listed here (and in my link to his stuff) Sadamn was invovled with terrorists
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
He doesn't care
May 6, 2007 - 21:03 ET by Mr. BishopHe doesn't care botg -- like most liberals, they think that it's a war on Al Qaeda, not a War on Terror. He would even ignore the undeniable fact that Hussein's government was a terrorist organization, and that he was the leader -- much like Osama bin Laden is to Al Qaeda.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
botg - I said Bush conflated
May 6, 2007 - 21:20 ET by ding7777botg - I said Bush conflated Saddam with 9/11.
Three bags full!
May 6, 2007 - 21:24 ET by Free StinkerThree bags full!
Noooooooooo...
May 6, 2007 - 21:44 ET by Mr. BishopNo, Bush conflated Saddam (and his actions) with terrorism -- which is what we are fighting against. War on Terror, and all that. 9-11 was just a specific act of terrorism that sticks out in people's minds.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Mr Bishop - Bush, after asser
May 7, 2007 - 01:36 ET by ding7777Mr Bishop - Bush, after asserting al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, then conflates al Qaeda with Saddam. Hence 2 years after 9/11, a WaPo poll shows:
Not doubt you were not one of those 80% who were fooled, right?
ding7777, Um, ok. Are you r
May 6, 2007 - 21:00 ET by hydrodynDMding7777,
Um, ok. Are you responding to what I posted to you?
I never once mentioned Saddam. And I don't recall - wait, let me go back and check my post - nope, didn't make any suggestions about Bush's support or lack of support for the 9/11 Commission.
If you want to actually respond to what I posted, I'll check back at some point.
hydrodynDM - I went back and
May 6, 2007 - 21:16 ET by ding7777hydrodynDM - I went back and read your post. Sure enough you were responding to what you characterized as my "criticisms... about the 9/11 Commission ".
If your post had nothing to do with my criticisms regarding Bush's dealing with the 9/11 commission, then we are not on the same page and I'll leave it go at that.
ding7777, Cute. My question
May 6, 2007 - 21:35 ET by hydrodynDMding7777,
Cute. My question to you wasn't about specific criticisms. The original list you provided was just a cut and past job from wikipedia and I wasn't that concerned about going point per point through them. That's obvious from what I wrote.
I had two main points. One was to suggest that the events around 9/11 were unique and unexpected so it isn't surprising some mistakes were made in getting info out to the nation. The other was to suggest that people who bludgeon Bush with these criticisms are probably motivated by a hatred for the man, rather than a desire to improve how things like this are handled in the future.
You didn't address either of these.
hydrodynDM - your point # 1:
May 7, 2007 - 01:20 ET by ding7777hydrodynDM -
your point # 1: One was to suggest that the events around 9/11 were unique and unexpected so it isn't surprising some mistakes were made in getting info out to the nation.
my reply to your point #1: It had nothing to with how unique or unexpected 9/11 was. The (Saddam/9-11) conflation was deliberate and ongoing for over two years. Also, Bush stonedwalled the 9/11 commission from the beginning and all through its charter, again a deliberate and ongoing process. We are speaking of years-long misinformation - not days or weeks.
your point #2: The other was to suggest that people who bludgeon Bush with these criticisms are probably motivated by a hatred for the man, rather than a desire to improve how things like this are handled in the future.
my reply to your point #2: My point from the very beginning of my posts was that Bush created one of the tin foil conspriacies (Saddam/91-11) and is responsiblitle for others because he stonewalled the 9/11 commission. And Bush should be criticized for that. Too bad "loyal Bushies" care more about Bush being critized than the truth of 9/11.
Finally my suspicions confirmed
May 6, 2007 - 21:59 ET by SportPoliticsFinally my suspicions confirmed. I always put it at half the democrats, so I'll give myself plenty of credit. 39% certain "Bush did it", and another 25% maybe is 64% total, yet split the 25% in half (those that say maybe convinced either way) add it to the 39%, and they're just above 50% of democrats thinking it's an inside job. That's a lot of left wing moonbats.
Man alive, we've got real problems. That's 1/4 of our population, with another near quarter in full support of their lunacy.
It certainly explains the Bush Derangement Syndrome and the immense hatred and vile lies and language used against our President.