1 in 3 Democrats is insane

[Hababi]

35% of Democrats polled said that President Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and another 26% "aren't sure."

Do yo think the poll is faulty or is this the way a significant portion of the Democrat party really thinks? There's plenty such blogs of that nature on dailykos.

(forgive the Fox News link)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272614,00.html

[Danger Bird]

Yeah, I don't know how you could predict it with things like "Bin Laden determined to attack US" coming at you.

[Otherside]

(forgive the Fox News link)

sorry bro but I can't let this fly

[Hababi]

Yeah, I don't know how you could predict it with things like "Bin Laden determined to attack US" coming at you.

:confused:

So...you think that George Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, and let it happen? Or do you think he was behind it?:amaze:

[Otherside]

I think it was fox news tbh

[Der Übermensch]

Meaningless numbers unless we have responses of Republicans to the same questions...

edit: Nm, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

Not very helpful though, just says 7-1 for Reps... I almost read the Unaffiliated as being the Rep response.

Edit... again...
It should be noted that the sources are obviously biased. Sure, zero used a Fox news one, but the one I have, the original source, has a McCain '08 ad on the page, as well as one for the LDS on the Side bar.
I don't think anyone would dispute a conservative bias here.

[lfantwister]

But its not comparing democrats to republicans, only to themselves

[Danger Bird]

:confused:

So...you think that George Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, and let it happen? Or do you think he was behind it?:amaze:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

Neither, I think he's incompetent.

[Hababi]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

Neither, I think he's incompetent.

They're not saying he's incompetent, they're choosing to believe he was at the very least complicit in the murder of almost 3,000 Americans.

[Danger Bird]

No, they said he knew about it in advance. The rest is the author of the article putting words in their mouths, a practice I would have expected better from an organization like Fox News, usually the epitome of professionalism and fairness. :rolleyes:

Zero, who are you to throw "insane" around, you think man coexisted with dinosaurs.

[Mr. Ron]

And a large portion of republicans think homosexuals are the main cause of all of out problems in the US, you're point?

[Hababi]

No, they said he new about it in advance.


...Thus making him complicit in the death of 3,000 Americans. Don't misrepresent the answers of the nutty Democrats.

[Der Übermensch]

But its not comparing democrats to republicans, only to themselves

The Fox News articles does...
But the original source has stats for Rep's and for Non-affiliated.

[Kithkin]

That's a poorly worded poll question.

Yes, he did know about planned attacks on the US. I imagine he was breifed on a number of potential attacks every month.

But it's the same on the rep side. 1/3 still think bush is doing a good job and the war is going well. Actually, it's probably more than that, since his general approval rating is about 33%

[Hababi]

That's a poorly worded poll question.

Yes, he did know about planned attacks on the US. I imagine he was breifed on a number of potential attacks every month.


Many, many potential attacks. Every day he gets a summary of new threats, and there are usually dozens. The memo everyone is now bringing to light was really no different than hundreds, even thousands of other ones.

[lfantwister]

So he did know about the attacks?

[AmericanWeiner]

3 in 3 Republicans is insane

[Smokey D]

I think it's reasonably clear at least some people in the Administration knew something was going to happen, but I doubt anyone knew quite what or that they actively let it happen.

3 in 3 Republicans is insane

Why is it that crazy liberals are less entertaining than crazy right-wingers?

[Cain]

...Thus making him complicit in the death of 3,000 Americans. Don't misrepresent the answers of the nutty Democrats.

oh god

the saddest thing is not so much that some people do believe those conspiracy theories so much as it is that every day when I read the newspaper I read things that are so amazingly appalling that they should be on the level of those conspiracy theories, when they actually happen, due to the bush administration. If going crazy didn't have severe political consequences the democrats--and anybody really--would be more than justified in doing so.

the ridicule democrats who questioned bush's motives for going to war in 2003 were subjected to, not to mention the incredibly steady willingness to go along with the obviously, patently false crap the administration was telling the country about the iraq situation, is more than justification for a certain amount of "vitriol" as that article says.

[Akira]

Do I think Bush planned 9/11, or even knew exactly what was going to happen? Of course not.
Do I think that people in Washington had some knowledge of the threat? Yes.

It's an awful poll question. While I do think people had reason to think planes might be flown into buildings, I don't know that it was any more of a threat than all the other threats that I am sure people in Washington find.

[Interviewer/surveyer]

That's a poorly worded poll question.

Yes, he did know about planned attacks on the US. I imagine he was breifed on a number of potential attacks every month.

But it's the same on the rep side. 1/3 still think bush is doing a good job and the war is going well. Actually, it's probably more than that, since his general approval rating is about 33%
yeah, more than 1/3 of republicans think that, but every day that goes by, the war loses more and more support. I know I used to be for the war up untill about 6 months ago.

More and more people are realizing that it was a HUGE waste of time, money and human life to invade Iraq. Iraq was far from perfect, but we had other priorities and things that needed to be taken care of before partaking in a project on the scale of this one, that wasn't even needed.

[AmericanWeiner]

I think it's reasonably clear at least some people in the Administration knew something was going to happen, but I doubt anyone knew quite what or that they actively let it happen.



Why is it that crazy liberals are less entertaining than crazy right-wingers?

It's more fun to make fun of idiots than loons.

[Cain]

It's more fun to make fun of idiots than loons.

I'd say the worst enemy of the well-informed conservative is a well-informed liberal.

The best enemy of any conservative is a poorly-informed liberal.

[Akira]

I'd say the worst enemy of the well-informed conservative is a well-informed liberal.

The best enemy of any conservative is a poorly-informed liberal.

To be fair, that works both ways.

[south_of_heaven 11]

Um, I bet Roosevelt had a thought in the back of his mind that Japan might do something stupid, and they did. So I guess we should hold Roosevelt responsible for Pearl Harbor? :confused:

[SoulSeekerz]

I am quite sure President Bush as was the whole country, the whole world for that matter was caught totally unaware.
When I saw the television footage, I was in shock, I was sure it was a movie at first.

[Eliminator]

Um, I bet Roosevelt had a thought in the back of his mind that Japan might do something stupid, and they did. So I guess we should hold Roosevelt responsible for Pearl Harbor? :confused:

we should hold you responsible you sick charlie ****er

[Cocaine]

Um, I bet Roosevelt had a thought in the back of his mind that Japan might do something stupid, and they did. So I guess we should hold Roosevelt responsible for Pearl Harbor? :confused:

Conveniently enough, the belief that the US was at least partially aware of Pearl Harbor before it happened is a pretty common belief.

[Carrionshine]

35% of Democrats polled said that President Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and another 26% "aren't sure."

Do yo think the poll is faulty or is this the way a significant portion of the Democrat party really thinks? There's plenty such blogs of that nature on dailykos.

(forgive the Fox News link)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272614,00.html

Check out my thread.:) http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=524083

Here's the first 8 links:

US warned in 1995 of plot to hijack airplanes, attack buildings(CNN):
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/18/inv.hijacking.philippines/index.html

US knew of suicide hijack threat in 1995(Fox News):
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47133,00.html

Bush told of threat before September 11(London Guardian):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,716529,00.html

Bush warned of hijack threat before September 11(Associated Press)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article188534.ece

Bush knew of hijack threat(CBS News)
http://www.bulatlat.com/news/2-16/2-16-readerCBS.html

Hijackers’ trailed by CIA before attacks’(London Guardian)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/Hijackers_trailed_by_CIA_before_attacks.htm

The Hijackers we let escape(MSNBC):
http://www.prisonplanet.com/The_Hijackers_We_Let_Escape.htm

’99 Report warned of suicide hijacking(Associated Press):
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/17/attack/main509471.shtml

I think it's reasonably clear at least some people in the Administration knew something was going to happen, but I doubt anyone knew quite what or that they actively let it happen.


If only John O'Neill wasnt killed on 9/11 at the WTC. He knew Al Qaeda more than anyone. He could have answered that question for you.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/john/timeline.html
According to Chris Isham, O'Neill recognized the threat still posed to the World Trade Center. "When he had first gotten the job at the World Trade Center, he told me, 'I've got this great job. I'm head of security at the World Trade Center.' And I joked with him and said, 'Well, that will be an easy job. They're not going to bomb that place again.' And he said, 'Well actually -- he immediately came back and he said, 'actually they've always wanted to finish that job. I think they're going to try again."


Let's not forget Jerome Hauer on the day of 9/11!

Dan Rather: Based on what you know, and I recognize we’re dealing with so few facts, is it possible that just a plane crash could have collapsed these buildings, or would it have required the, sort of, prior positioning of other explosives in the, uh, in the buildings? I mean, what do you think?

Jerome Hauer: No, I, uh, my sense is just the velocity of the plane and the fact that you have a plane filled with fuel hitting that building, uh, that burned, uh, the velocity of that plane, uh, certainly, uh, uh, had an impact on the structure itself, and then the fact that it burned and you had that intense heat, uh, probably weakened the structure as well, uh, and I think it, uh, was, uh, simply the, uh, the planes hitting the buildings, and, and causing the collapse.


http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/02/meet-jerome-hauer-911-suspect-awaiting.html:lol:
Dan Rather: What perspective can you give us? I mean, there have been these repeated reports that, well, yes, Osama Bin Laden, but some think he’s been over-emphasized as, as responsible for these kinds of events. I know many intelligence, uh, people at very high levels who say, listen, you can’t have these kinds of attacks without having some state, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, somebody involved. Put that into perspective for us.

Jerome Hauer: Yeah, well I’m not sure I agree that, umm, this is necessarily state-sponsored. Umm, it, as I mentioned earlier, certainly has, umm, the, uh, fingerprints of somebody like Bin Laden.

Damn, Jerome Hauer had it all figured out the ****in day it happened! In the midst of all the shock and confusion, Dan Rather just happened to interview the one guy who knows how the towers collapsed and who did it. Just wonderful.

Here's an interesting 9 minute video to watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U_GISl3aAA

[Reaganista]

35% of Democrats polled said that President Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and another 26% "aren't sure."

Do yo think the poll is faulty or is this the way a significant portion of the Democrat party really thinks? There's plenty such blogs of that nature on dailykos.

(forgive the Fox News link)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272614,00.html

in situations like this you should prolly post the actual poll and not some rant by a fox news guy

Um, I bet Roosevelt had a thought in the back of his mind that Japan might do something stupid, and they did. So I guess we should hold Roosevelt responsible for Pearl Harbor?
actually roosevelt really wanted japan to attack the US

[Danger Bird]

...Thus making him complicit in the death of 3,000 Americans. Don't misrepresent the answers of the nutty Democrats.

Democrats didn't give an extended response, they answered yes or no to the question "Did George Bush know about the attacks in advance?" Some answered yes, because it is obvious from the memo that the threat was brought to his attention. They never said that made him complicit or "in on it," that was just what the editor said their answers meant, because Faux News is full crazy assholes. Nobody's saying this makes him responsible for the attacks, or that he should have done something more to prevent them, they're just answering the question by saying yes, it was in fact brought to his attention.

[Hababi]

Democrats didn't give an extended response, they answered yes or no to the question "Did George Bush know about the attacks in advance?" Some answered yes, because it is obvious from the memo that the threat was brought to his attention.


No. The specific threat was never brought to his attention. A broad warning about general strategies, along with dozens and even hundreds of others, was. That's not the same thing and don't make believe it was.

[AmericanWeiner]

Well semantic debates after the fact are 20/20 i guess

[Danger Bird]

No. The specific threat was never brought to his attention. A broad warning about general strategies, along with dozens and even hundreds of others, was. That's not the same thing and don't make believe it was.

NOBODY IS TRYING TO BLAME THIS ON BUSH. He received a memo about Osama Bin Laden attacking the US and that is what happened. Now we're just arguing about the wording of the question and what it implies, which is obviously confusing and misleading, which makes it understandable why some of the democrats answered yes.

[Cain]

To be fair, that works both ways.

Not really, in my experience. I find that liberals are much more burdened than conservatives, ideologically, because they tend to get crushed by way of "the way things are" being hammered into the infinitely more flimsy "the way things ought to be." Liberals will often have plenty of good rhetoric, but when asked to back up their views they often fail because they may not be so good with science, economics, history, the backbone of informed discussion. They may be much better with philosophy, literature, creative art, social science, psychology--much of which don't neccesarily reflect, or lead to, "practical worldviews," as they operate in more nebulous and ever-changing dimensions of thought and development, where less is accepted as "certain."

The best-informed people are those well-versed in both arenas, of course, but if you only had one or the other you'd win over more followers in the political arena by demonstrating a grasp of the former, a sense of awareness of "truths," "laws," "history," "tradition." And in an arena where so much is already simplified, these kinds of simplifications make the liberal seem like he operates on more tenuous ideological ground than the conservative. Where ideology fails to match up with reality, the liberal's viewpoint is poisoned automatically before it can be acted upon, whereas right-wing views usually only reach that point once they have already reached their most extreme levels of expression--totalitarianism. As a result, a conservative could be very poorly informed and still not cede any ideological ground to a well-informed liberal because the conservative's belief structure is so clear and solid as it is based in some concept of "certainty," be it moral or factual. Liberals are less strong in this area simply by virtue of the fact they embrace "possibilities," and "openness:" conversely it makes them less ideologically prepared to deal with crisis, which is something fully-expressed right wing societies do very well by instituting systems of repression like the police state.

The liberal, therefore, has no best or worst ideological enemies, and can only hope to defeat any enemy by becoming a well-informed liberal--and sadly this often doesn't happen because so much work needs to be done to achieve it. This is not true of the opposite side--their battles are much easier. IMO.

The above is very simplified but in my experience it tends to hold true.

[Hababi]

NOBODY IS TRYING TO BLAME THIS ON BUSH. He received a memo about Osama Bin Laden attacking the US and that is what happened. Now we're just arguing about the wording of the question and what it implies, which is obviously confusing and misleading, which makes it understandable why some of the democrats answered yes.

No, the question is specifically about 9/11, not about broad terrorist strategies and possibilities, which is what the memo hinted at. Not the same thing at all.

[Danger Bird]

No, the question is specifically about 9/11, not about broad terrorist strategies and possibilities, which is what the memo hinted at. Not the same thing at all.

Okay, that's what you think. But you have to acknowledge that it was a poorly worded question and most of the yes answers probably came from a different view of what the question implied. Zero, why can't you just let it go?

[griftadan]

Yeah, I don't know how you could predict it with things like "Bin Laden determined to attack US" coming at you.

that's quite the jump from "he knew was bin laden determined to attack US" to "Bush knew about the events of September 11th in advance"

[Reaganista]

Not really, in my experience. I find that liberals are much more burdened than conservatives, ideologically, because they tend to get crushed by way of "the way things are" being hammered into the infinitely more flimsy "the way things ought to be." In my experience liberals tend not to have the highest propensity to cite information and realistic proposals to back up their support of progressive ideals. As a result, liberals will often have plenty of rhetoric, but when asked to back up their views they often fail because they may not be so good with science, economics, history, the backbone of informed discussion. They may be much better with philosophy, literature, creative art, social science, psychology--much of which don't neccesarily reflect, or lead to, "practical worldviews," as they operate in more nebulous and ever-changing modes and dimensions of thought and development. The best-informed people are those well-versed in both arenas, of course, but if you only had one or the other you'd win over more followers in the political arena by demonstrating a grasp of the former, a sense of awareness of "truths," "laws," "history," "tradition." And in an arena where so much is already simplified, these kinds of simplifications make the liberal seem like he operates on more tenuous ideological ground than the conservative. Where ideology fails to match up with reality, the liberal's viewpoint is poisoned automatically before it can be acted upon, whereas right-wing views usually only reach that point once they have already reached their most extreme levels of expression--totalitarianism.

ok i'm confused
you can't have a worldview that approaches anything that could be called practical without knowledge of history and social sciences
extensive knowledge of chemistry or what have you would however be nearly useless in this regard

[Cain]

ok i'm confused
you can't have a worldview that approaches anything that could be called practical without knowledge of history and social sciences
extensive knowledge of chemistry or what have you would however be nearly useless in this regard

I understand, I'm more talking about how the knowledge must intersect with the ideology for it to have any viable meaning, and that while the theorists that create an ideological viewpoint may have this awareness, many followers of that viewpoint will not--they will simply accept what is told to them based on their own limited experience or wholesale lack of it. And I'm saying that, for a liberal, this is an infinitely more dangerous thing to do if one expects to see one's ideology become a reality than it is for a conservative.

I also edited that post to make it a bit less tl;dr.

[Danger Bird]

that's quite the jump from "he knew was bin laden determined to attack US" to "Bush knew about the events of September 11th in advance"

Read the thread plz

[griftadan]

i have a long and proud history of judging someone by the first post in a thread

[Danger Bird]

Okay I can respect that.

[Knifeboy]

Serenity, I'm suprised to learn that you'd put this much credit in a poll.
Only idiots and morons trust polls
Polls are made by people who want a specific response, and they know how to get it

[Hababi]

Serenity, I'm suprised to learn that you'd put this much credit in a poll.
Only idiots and morons trust polls
Polls are made by people who want a specific response, and they know how to get it

Here's why I'm inclined to lend credibility to the poll:
http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1142985587_qjGKVHSm
http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1153762609_faWKFwYY
http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1149259559_tYZQMxXs
http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1154179741_lwSYryNn
http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1147334161_NBxAggal
http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1161984068_bVicxuJJ
http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1159268472_lFpDcDOn
http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1152125683_rkPcbeIB
http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1165842669_cCBHVTNj
http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1157826944_tCoZicyq

Netroots=nutroots

[Rams]

The above is very simplified but in my experience it tends to hold true.

Who do you interact with? Most conservatives and liberals I meet in real life don't know **** about anything political, just what they hear from news sources (or in rare cases blogs), viral videos, and other fun conspiracy theories.

[AmericanWeiner]

Who do you interact with? Most conservatives and liberals I meet in real life don't know **** about anything political, just what they hear from news sources (or in rare cases blogs), viral videos, and other fun conspiracy theories.

I think you missed the point there

[Reaganista]

http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1149259559_tYZQMxXs
absolute madness

[spitfirejunky]

:lol: http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1157826944_tCoZicyq

Who the **** goes to this website?

[VomitStainedCretin]

:lol: http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1157826944_tCoZicyq

Who the **** goes to this website?The real hijackers were obvious clones of Cheney sent by their reptilian warlord to do God's work.

[Rams]

I think you missed the point there

I did get it. Although I disagree with him for other reasons, his "in my experience it tends to hold true" sounds like a lie.

:lol: http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1157826944_tCoZicyq

Who the **** goes to this website?

114 people.

[Cain]

I did get it. Although I disagree with him for other reasons, his "in my experience it tends to hold true" sounds like a lie.


Um then you really didn't get it. First of all, read my response to Tway's reply to the original post, and you'll see that I actually agree with you in a general way and so you're arguing with me about nothing. And no, it's not a "lie," otherwise I wouldn't have said "in my experience," I would have said "in my imagination," or something.

I think you should be clear about what exactly you disagree with me on and why before you start supposing what are "lies" in what I write.

[Iscariot]

sure i believe it but only because there were enough warnings to fill a bulletin board before the attack happened and nothing was done to prevent it

it's just like what happened with pearl harbor we had japanese subs sneaking around off the west coast and then everyone was shocked and amazed when pearl harbor got hit

[A Spoonful Supreme]

35% of Democrats polled said that President Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and another 26% "aren't sure."

Do yo think the poll is faulty or is this the way a significant portion of the Democrat party really thinks? There's plenty such blogs of that nature on dailykos.

(forgive the Fox News link)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272614,00.html

I definitely believe that the poll was faulty, that's such a misleading question and who knows what kind of questions preceded that.

And isn't there more evidence that bush knew about 9/11 than god existing LOL

[Loser]

Someone told me that Bush was the one flying all the planes.

[Amit]

Zero, who are you to throw "insane" around, you think man coexisted with dinosaurs.

lol seriously

i thought that was volflush

[Knifeboy]

Here's why I'm inclined to lend credibility to the poll:

So you lend credibility to a moronic poll, because of retarded polls?

That's like supporting Hussein because Hitler was worse

[EinzingerIsGod]

I'd buy it maybe if it was done by an independent and reputable source, not the network that broadcasts Bill O'Rielly.

[simplephotographinthesun]

taken from john gibson in the article:

"The results showed that 35 percent of Democrats believe he did know, 39 percent say he did not know and 26 percent are not sure.

[...]

But the people who don't read, who continue to believe these things in the face of evidence and reason and logic — let's say Rosie, and a majority of Democrats evidently"

that's all the indication you need really.

[Hababi]

taken from john gibson in the article:

"The results showed that 35 percent of Democrats believe he did know, 39 percent say he did not know and 26 percent are not sure.

[...]

But the people who don't read, who continue to believe these things in the face of evidence and reason and logic — let's say Rosie, and a majority of Democrats evidently"

that's all the indication you need really.

He was combining the stats for those who are nuts and those who lean toward nuttery, which combines to be 61%.

[simplephotographinthesun]

He was combining the stats for those who are nuts and those who lean toward nuttery, which combines to be 61%.

ah the 26% who aren't sure. john gibson is a sly fox.

[Danger Bird]

Right Zero, being mislead by a misleading question is insanity. Worshiping a 2000-year old carpenter is the portrait of a sound mind.

[Hababi]

Right Zero, being mislead by a misleading question is insanity.

I don't find the question misleading and anyone who would be mislead by that question is an imbecile. So either more than 1/3 of Democrats are conspiratorial or they're stupid.

[AmericanWeiner]

either 3/3 of serenity are conspiratorial or they're stupid

Why do you stay here. I mean, I would contribute if you had a valid point

oh wait you dont even have a point nevermind

[Hababi]

either 3/3 of serenity are conspiratorial or they're stupid

Why do you stay here. I mean, I would contribute if you had a valid point

oh wait you dont even have a point nevermind

No, you just don't have a counterpoint. There's a difference.

[TheDarkHorse]

35% of Democrats polled said that President Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and another 26% "aren't sure."

Do yo think the poll is faulty or is this the way a significant portion of the Democrat party really thinks? There's plenty such blogs of that nature on dailykos.

(forgive the Fox News link)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272614,00.html

its kinda hard to not know when 9 countries warn you

[AmericanWeiner]

No, you just don't have a counterpoint. There's a difference.

Here is my counterpoint:

1/3 Democrats is not insane according to the psychological majority of america because if they were fox news would have certainly already latched onto that as well.

Also, being of the Democratic party has not been shown to have any effect for positive or negative on IQ by a scientific study.

Your conclusions are not made by a trained professional in the field of study of intelligence and psychology and therefore are not valid.

[Hababi]

Here is my counterpoint:

1/3 Democrats is not insane according to the psychological majority of america because if they were fox news would have certainly already latched onto that as well.

Also, being of the Democratic party has not been shown to have any effect for positive or negative on IQ by a scientific study.

Your conclusions are not made by a trained professional in the field of study of intelligence and psychology and therefore are not valid.

Except that believing that George Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and allowed it to happen is insane.

[Dave de Sylvia]

zero you rascal

[AmericanWeiner]

Except that believing that George Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and allowed it to happen is insane.

Proof please.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

First of all Zero, you're inclined to believe this poll because you're a republican, plain and simple, in a bubble of partisan reasoning (you're a tool). Second, that question could be any of the following...

1. "Do you think Bush (AND HIS ADMINISTRATION) knew 9/11 was going to happen and then let it happen?"

2. "Do you think Bush (AND HIS ADMINISTRATION) was involved in carrying out the attacks on 9/11?"

3. "Do you think Bush (AND HIS ADMINISTRATION) had sufficient knowledge to deduce that 9/11 was going to happen, but didn't?"

I'm going to go with the notion that most people deciphered that question as #3. You might argue that that interpretation is a bit contrived, but just consider that #3 is what is most often asked and adressed and researched, and is fresh in people's minds.

And still, before you decide to believe that 30 whatever percent of anybody is insane (a huge belief, among other STUPID BELIEFS THAT SHALL NOT BE MENTIONED), make sure, at least in fairness to people, that what is being asked is clear and concise.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Proof please.
If there was proof they wouldn't be doing polls.

First of all Zero, you're inclined to believe this poll because you're a republican, plain and simple, in a bubble of partisan reasoning (you're a tool). Second, that question could be any of the following...
It's from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports

[Hababi]

First of all Zero, you're inclined to believe this poll because you're a republican, plain and simple, in a bubble of partisan reasoning. Second, that question could be any of the following...


So why is it that you're much more inclined to believe similar polls about similar numbers of Republicans still believing that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11? Btw, I'm inclined to believe those polls too, so don't write it off as partisan squabble. But there's a whole heck of a lot of difference between the two errant beliefs.


I'm going to go with the notion that most people deciphered that question as #3. You might argue that that interpretation is a bit contrived, but just consider that #3 is what is most often asked and adressed and researched, and is fresh in people's minds.


The syntax of the poll question doesn't support that. It didn't say prior pointers, it said prior KNOWLEDGE of 9/11, unavoidably leading to the conclusion that more than a third of Democrats think that George Bush knew specifically that terrorists were going to attack on that day and allowed it to happen.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

It's from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports

And you're point is...

[Dave de Sylvia]

And you're point is...
It's a respected agency endorsed across the political spectrum and is unlikely to post misleading statistics.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

The syntax of the poll question doesn't support that. It didn't say prior pointers, it said prior KNOWLEDGE of 9/11, unavoidably leading to the conclusion that more than a third of Democrats think that George Bush knew specifically that terrorists were going to attack on that day and allowed it to happen.

But "prior KNOWLEDGE" could be easily taken as "prior KNOWLEDGE (lying around somewhere that he didn't ACT on)."

ffsIt's a respected agency endorsed across the political spectrum and is unlikely to post misleading statistics.

if its misleading its misleading what's reputation got do with it

[Hababi]

But "prior KNOWLEDGE" could be easily taken as "prior KNOWLEDGE (lying around somewhere that he didn't ACT on)."


I'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense. Prior knowledge means they think George Bush knew that terrorists were going to attack us on 9/11 and did nothing to stop it. As the litany of polls from nutroots dailykos.com shows.

[Dave de Sylvia]

if its misleading its misleading what's reputation got do with it
The question wasn't misleading.

[Cain]

so many letters expended over such a bad thread

the past four pages have been dominated by arguments over the syntax of a poll question which is a bad poll question and polls are stupid anyway so zero stfu and mods please close yet another distraction from the business of discussing politics for chrissakes

[Knifeboy]

Any sane person knows that statistics and polls are bullshit.
Ergo, Serenity is clearly insane

[Tillius]

I'm neither republican or democratic, but I believe, to some extent anyway, that Bush fully knew about this.
I wouldn't be surprised if he was behind it as well.
Not saying he IS, just saying it wouldn't surprise me in the least bit.

[Dave de Sylvia]

You believe to an extent that he fully knew about it? I am certain that you might be possibly insane.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

Yeah I'd say all signs point to: it was a bunch of middle-easterners flying a plane into a building, nothing more.

[Illmatic]

there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[Hababi]

They especially lie when they say something you don't like ;)

[Mr. Ron]

Did he have intelligence that 9/11 might happen? Probably, its not impossible. Did he orchestrate it? Certainly not.

[thedeadwalk!]

I think the question is a little loaded. "Knowing of 9/11" beforehand is going to mean different things to different people. Saying that democrats answered this poll isn't going to mean you're getting a singular frame of thought either. With terms like "pre-9/11 mindset" this thing has been politicized into oblivion.

Did he have intel that something could/would happen? Or, could he have accurately described what finally did happen and did nothing/little to stop it?

It's like asking "should we go into Iran if a situation like Vietnam happens?" There's so many meanings flying around it's useless.

[BassVirtuoso]

I still don't know what this has to do with being insane. I would understand if the question was "Is Evolution real?" and 1 in 3 Democrats answered yes, now that's insane. But...9/11?

[pedro durruti]

Quit trying to create political skirmishes. Let alone the fact that you are framing such an absurd statistic with such an absurd spin on it.

The election isn't even a year away. Let's pay attention to more important politics that actually have significance in the world rather than a bunch of demagoguery and mud-slinging.

[Carrionshine]

You guys are ridiculous. My Alex Jones thread got completely ignored, and my post got ignored as well. It's time you re-evaluate 9/11.

[Smokey D]

Re-evaluate? Maybe.

Believe crazy conspiracy theories? Probably not.