A cage match between birthers and truthers

In an effort to gauge “fringe” sentiments, Public Policy Polling added a couple of interesting questions to its recent national poll:

“Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States?”

“Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because
he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?”

Over at Pollster.com, Brendan Nyhan put the results into a chart, broken down by party affiliation. 6a00d83451d25c69e20120a592022f970b-450wiThe chart combines those who said “yes” and those who said they were uncertain. For example, 25 percent of Democrats said they believed Bush had allowed the attacks of 9/11 to take place, while another 12 percent said they weren’t sure. Nyhan charts that at 37 percent.

Likewise, 42 percent of Republicans said they believe Obama was not born in the United States, and another 22 percent said they weren’t sure, for a total on the chart of 64 percent.

Personally, I doubt the numbers are that high. In the course of answering a poll, people can tend to treat statements like these as expressions of political loyalty or antipathy. They don’t really believe that Bush allowed Sept. 11 to happen or that Obama isn’t a citizen, but the question gives them a way to voice their more general opposition to those figures.

At least that’s what I keep telling myself, because otherwise I’d have to believe there are a lot of crazy people in this country.

313 comments Add your comment

Normal

September 24th, 2009
7:45 am

MR. PRESIDENT, BRING OUR TROOPS HOME!
——————-
LET’S RRRUUUMMMBBBLLLEEE!!!

Doggone/GA

September 24th, 2009
7:46 am

” In the course of answering a poll, people can tend to treat statements like these as expressions of political loyalty or antipathy.”

And that’s why I never respond to polls

Normal

September 24th, 2009
7:49 am

At least that’s what I keep telling myself, because otherwise I’d have to believe there are a lot of crazy people in this country.

I CERTAINLY BELIEVE IT.

Normal

September 24th, 2009
7:51 am

Doggone, If I respond to a poll, I put down uncertain all the way down,
and I write a note on the front, asking why they didn’t have a “don’t give a fig” column.

Mrs. Godzilla

September 24th, 2009
7:52 am

I don’t think the word “allow” is exactly correct. So I’d have to say no, he didn’t “allow” 9/11 to happen.

A better word might be fumble.

Doggone/GA

September 24th, 2009
7:58 am

Mrs G…there are several definitions of “allow” and this one: “to permit by neglect, oversight, or the like:” is probably the one a lot of people who replied Yes to that question had in mind. If *I* was to respond yes to that question, this definition is why.

Peadawg

September 24th, 2009
7:59 am

I guess there are idiots on BOTH SIDES after all…contrary to Jay, Godzilla, Normal, Doggon, and UsinUk’s belief.

Turd Ferguson

September 24th, 2009
7:59 am

Cage match?

In lieu of a Cage match I think it would be fitting if we had one of the following matches…

A Texas Death match.
A 32 man over the top rope battle royal.
A shave head match (loser gets head shaved).
A Mis-match.
A Lumberjack match (constestants beat one another w/2X4’s).
A No rope barbed wire deathmatch.
A Crapfest match (constestants hurl feces at one another).
A Falls count anywhere match.
A Ladder match.
A Crazy-8 match.
A Dooms-day cage match.
Hell in a Cell match.
A Lions Den match (Loser is fed to the lions).
A Guillotine match (Losers head is lopped off using a rusty dull blade).
A Pepper Spray match (Can of pepper spray is sprayed in face of loser).

A Jay Bookman match (Loser forced to spend week with Jay Bookman). That gotta be hell on earth.

A Hell on earth match (Loser forced to spend week with Jay Bookman).

And finally a Texas Death match (loser is taken out and shot in the face until dead).

Doggone/GA

September 24th, 2009
8:01 am

“contrary to Jay, Godzilla, Normal, Doggon, and UsinUk’s belief.”

There you go with that amazingly BAD mind reading again. You need a refresher course.

GOP is Gone

September 24th, 2009
8:01 am

Why give either of these ludicrous opinions any more time in the media?

Peadawg

September 24th, 2009
8:04 am

“There you go with that amazingly BAD mind reading again. You need a refresher course.”

From your repeated comments on this board, IMO(it is obvious), y’all believe the Left can do no wrong..the Right can do no right. This pole proves otherwise. It goes both ways people whether you believe it or not.

Doggone/GA

September 24th, 2009
8:08 am

“From your repeated comments on this board, IMO(it is obvious), y’all believe the Left can do no wrong..the Right can do no right.”

your opinion is based on, at best, faulty memory of what is posted here. You will never, no matter how hard you try, find any post from ME that would lead you to conclude I think “the Left” can do no wrong. NEVER.

TnGelding

September 24th, 2009
8:09 am

Normal

September 24th, 2009
7:45 am

Thanks for the notice downstairs.

Turd Ferguson

September 24th, 2009
7:59 am

Now you know you can’t get enough of Jay.

You need to take this one down, Jay. Cynthia beat you to it.

Mrs. Godzilla

September 24th, 2009
8:11 am

Peadawg

and a gracious good morning to you too!

What a delightful fellow you are!

TnGelding

September 24th, 2009
8:11 am

Don’t you have to be crazy to be a Democrat or a Republican? (But Cynthia called them loony.)

Mrs. Godzilla

September 24th, 2009
8:13 am

Reposted from downstairs…..considering the topic is nut cases….

I wonder …..have Lou Dobbs and Michelle Bachmann seen this?

“A U.S. Census worker found hanging from a tree near a Kentucky cemetery had the word “fed” scrawled on his chest, a law enforcement official said Wednesday, and the FBI is investigating whether he was a victim of anti-government sentiment.”

here:

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/census-worker-found-hanged/

Peadawg

September 24th, 2009
8:14 am

“and a gracious good morning to you too!

What a delightful fellow you are!

Good morning to you too ma’am. I’m usually grumpy on Monday but my mood gets better throughout the week :)

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

September 24th, 2009
8:15 am

Well, it was right there on TV. My President was reading My Pet Goat to the kids in Florida when the Terrists hit us. And when he was told they hit us he stopped reading and sort of set there all froze up like he’d been whacked with a 2 x 4. Like you’d freeze up if your wife told you you wasn’t the father of your own kids. So it’s a lie to say he allowed them to do it.

Now if Obama was born in the U.S. of A. he would of showed us the Long Form of his Birth Certificate by now. And he still ain’t done it because he don’t have none and he was born in Kenya. So it’s the Truth he wasn’t born in the U.S. of A.

Use some Common Sense, people. You know the Truth about these things. Have a good day everybody.

Mrs. Godzilla

September 24th, 2009
8:16 am

Peadawg

so we’ve noticed.

TnGelding

September 24th, 2009
8:16 am

Mrs. Godzilla

September 24th, 2009
8:09 am

That depends on what your definition of fair is. They’re definitely going to have to pay more. What about a temporary 10% surtax on everyone and a 10% tax on those of us that aren’t contributing? And of course, letting the reductions expire a natural 10 year death.

Taxpayer

September 24th, 2009
8:20 am

Who is Lou Dobbs and why would he call himself a flea-bitten dirty mangy dog. That is the sort of stupid talk that I would expect from, oh well, a birther.

stands for decibels

September 24th, 2009
8:20 am

Personally, I doubt the numbers are that high. In the course of answering a poll, people can tend to treat statements like these as expressions of political loyalty or antipathy. They don’t really believe that Bush allowed Sept. 11 to happen or that Obama isn’t a citizen, but the question gives them a way to voice their more general opposition to those figures.

Yeah. If I had to make a SWAG as to a genuine percentage, I’d say cut them in half. For instance, I don’t really think that (as was reported amid much bemusement in mid-August) that 8% of North Carolinians “consider Hawaii to be part of the United
States”. I think it just means that 8% of NCers are ornery enough to tell a pollster than they don’t.

(Why so ornery? IMHO, because they’re that heavily in denial about the results of the last election.)

Likely, though, yeah–4% really do either think Hawaii is not part of the US, or aren’t sure. and I bet it’s not just NC that can make such a claim of its residents, either.

TnGelding

September 24th, 2009
8:23 am

yowsa

September 24th, 2009
8:17 am

Definitely tracking in the wrong direction, but I’d guess it’ll start going the other way when he is authenticated with good results. I’d like to see a little less Bush and a little more Clinton in style.

Taxpayer

September 24th, 2009
8:24 am

Well, I find it difficult to disagree with the notion that the right wing nutter butters can do nothing correct. However, they most certainly always do what only right wing nutter butters do.

TnGelding

September 24th, 2009
8:25 am

Mrs. Godzilla

September 24th, 2009
8:09 am

Aren’t you a small business owner?

How is your mother-in-law doing?

Hef

September 24th, 2009
8:28 am

Sadly I disagree,I do believe there are those on all sides that tend to go for extreme positions,that’s why we have so much tabloid media. National Enquir,TMZ,PEOPLE,Reality TV,etc make a killing off such fools.Polls like these just re-inforce my beliefs

USinUK

September 24th, 2009
8:29 am

Peadawg –

“I guess there are idiots on BOTH SIDES after all…contrary to Jay, Godzilla, Normal, Doggon, and UsinUk’s belief.”

actually, I never would have argued that with you (having worked in politics for 6 years and lived in DC for 8 – I’ve seen ‘em up CLOSE!)

:-)

Mrs. Godzilla

September 24th, 2009
8:29 am

TN…

We own 2 small business’s…and I have a job to boot.

Our MiMi is ok….she’s got about 4 or 5 good hours a day now. We took her to see the ocean last week and I think the salt air and change of scenery did her some good. But we did have another episode last night…some mom doctoring and steroid inhalers and nebulizers and O2 calmed her down and got her breathing normally again. Scarey stuff.

You are very sweet to ask.

ir4georgia

September 24th, 2009
8:31 am

If we’re crazy (”because otherwise I’d have to believe there are a lot of crazy people in this country”), then just answer the questions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyKR2-A0KPU

Goldie

September 24th, 2009
8:32 am

Yes, there’s a lot of crazies in this country… John Birch-ers, birth-ers, KKK-ers, etc…

USinUK

September 24th, 2009
8:32 am

Mrs. G –

8:13 – I saw that story this morning and was absolutely horrified. (of course, the idea that the investigators are ruling out “self-inflicted” seems a bit of a waste of time, but I guess they gotta do what they gotta do) …

but you can’t tell me that wing-nuts (not ALL republicans, just the crispy bits on the edge) haven’t fed into this fear and loathing of all things gummint …

Mrs. Godzilla

September 24th, 2009
8:32 am

SCrew the cage match……make it pudding wrestling.

Paul

September 24th, 2009
8:34 am

[[At least that’s what I keep telling myself, because otherwise I’d have to believe there are a lot of crazy people in this country.]]

I keep hoping the number (20-25%) of people who will believe has remained constant. I hope these two – one funneling into fascination with conspiracy theories, the other, a justification as to why ‘he isn’t really our president’ (same idea as liberal’s disputing the rule of law with the Court’s 2000 Bush v Gore decision to say ‘he really isn’t our president) – are elevated because of the partisan view of things.

At least, that’s what I keep hoping -

RW-(the original)

September 24th, 2009
8:36 am

And that’s why I never respond to polls

After observing this blog for a while I find it very hard to believe there’s anything you don’t respond too.

Cue response……

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights – for the student who seeks to learn; the voter who demands to be heard; the innocent who longs to be free; and the oppressed who yearns to be equal.–BHO 9/23/09

Tell that one to Neda and the rest of the Iranian people that yearned to be free and equal, Barry. Words…just words.

USinUK

September 24th, 2009
8:39 am

Mrs G –

“SCrew the cage match……make it pudding wrestling”

how about a friendly game of kickball??

as for the question “did the president allow 9/11 to happen” – I wish they had made it a little more b/w to weed the truly nutty out … I would say “yes” simply because he ignored the PDB and hadn’t convened a single meeting about terrorism between taking office and 9/11. Call it “allowing” through benign neglect, not anything nefarious. I don’t think there was a conspiracy, I just think that ignorance allowed it to happen.

mike

September 24th, 2009
8:41 am

Saying that you don’t know whether Obama was born in America does not make you a birther. I am confident that a lot of people don’t know if he was born here, but also think that he is a legitimate President. Does Jay really think that all of these people know about the naturalized birth requirements for the President? Give me a break. Bookman is using the same lame trick that Tucker did yesterday.

On the other hand, there is no doubt about the views of the “truthers”. There is no ambiguoty about that question.

Finally, let’s compare the two charges. You can not think that Bush may have been behind 9/11 without being a truly evil person. There is no such connotation to the accusation that one is born out of the country.

USinUK

September 24th, 2009
8:42 am

RW –

“Tell that one to Neda and the rest of the Iranian people that yearned to be free and equal, Barry. Words…just words.”

there’s a difference between standing up for them and inserting ourselves into a political process of a sovereign nation. sorry, but I think that staying out of Iran’s affairs and letting democracy bubble up from the bottom (which is happening) is the right thing to do.

USinUK

September 24th, 2009
8:44 am

mike –

“You can not think that Bush may have been behind 9/11 without being a truly evil person. ”

thanks – that was exactly my point – I think there’s a world of difference between saying that he allowed it to happen and saying he was behind it.

RW-(the original)

September 24th, 2009
8:44 am

USinUK,

Apparently BO holds your same belief that we should stay out of other people’s political affairs and even if I don’t hold that view I can understand it, but if one holds that view they shouldn’t be giving speeches saying they’ll stand and support anyone that yearns to be free since all they’re really prepared to do is watch them get slaughtered in the street.

Kayaker 71

September 24th, 2009
8:45 am

Apparently, there was one legislator who lost her Congressional seat because she alleged that Bush not only had prior knowledge of 9/11 but was complicit in purposefully allowing the event to happen. I sometimes wish she were still in Congress. At least we had someone to laugh about from time to time.

Atlanta Native

September 24th, 2009
8:47 am

Jay, you read the comments and respond from time to time (unlike a certain counterpart of yours).

You know that there are sufficient fanatics on both sides that will never let reality intrude on their beliefs. The problem is when the entirety of one side gets painted as the same as the crazies.

These statistics are why those of us who are sane and have jobs and busy lives need to respond to polls. Otherwise the nutjobs views get into the political focus groups.

GayGrayGeek

September 24th, 2009
8:47 am

Doggone @ 8:08 – It’s that old wingnut tactic of “Proof By Repeated Assertion” aka “Repeat a lie enough times and it becomes the truth”. At least Peadawg didn’t start with the drumbeat of how you FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER ‘em. :-/

mike

September 24th, 2009
8:47 am

USinUK –

“as for the question “did the president allow 9/11 to happen” – I wish they had made it a little more b/w to weed the truly nutty out ”

Are you kidding? Can you not read?

Here is question:

““Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because
he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?”

There is nothing ambiguous about that question at all. On the other hand, the Obama question is very ambiguous.

If the Obama question had been phrased the same way it would read something like:

““Do you think Barack Obama was born outside the United State, making his Presidency invalid?”

But of course, Jay is sourcing a hyper-partisan polling outfit who clearly designed the questions to minimize the number of truthers and maximize he number of birthers. They are just as intellectually dishonest as Jay.

USinUK

September 24th, 2009
8:48 am

for anyone who is an ancient history buff, you might find this interesting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/8272058.stm

(sadly, there was nothing inscribed in elvish)

Paul

September 24th, 2009
8:48 am

G’morning, USinUK

I realize much of this is one’s own interpretation of what might have been, as well as how much power one thinks a single person has to move the vast bureaucracy from historic practices -

but, just the other day a judge chastised the Obama Administration for not following the President’s executive order to simple review the Gitmo cases, oldest first, and make prosecution recommendations…. gov’t said it needed more time….

and, the Executive recognized the problem continuing incarceration at Gitmo poses and ordered the facility closed…. yet months later, after lots of meetings and policy papers and discussions, no progress…

yet we cling to the belief that the tragedy of 9-11 might have been averted, that the enmity and mistrust and noncooperation that existed between Federal agencies; that the public would be willing to endure odious measures in the face of a nonspecific threat; that years of procedures and policies and all the myriad problems outlined in the 9-11 Commission report….

would have been overcome if we’d had a few meetings and said yet again, ‘the guy doesn’t like us, and as we’ve heard for ten years, wants to attack us.”

But we can’t even review old court cases or decide what to do with prisoners. After lots of meetings.

USinUK

September 24th, 2009
8:49 am

Mike –

“Here is question:

““Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?”

There is nothing ambiguous about that question at all. On the other hand, the Obama question is very ambiguous.”

sorry – my apologies – I was just going by the heading on the graph.

that being the question, ignore my earlier post – you’re dead-on right.

mike

September 24th, 2009
8:50 am

GayGrayGeek –

Your hypocrisy is laughable. You are describing the behavior of mindless partisans of both stripes, of which you are one. Maybe if you weren’t so wrapped up by your hypocrisy you could note that the tactics of extremists on the right and the left are pretty much the same. Like you or Redneck Convert for example. You are intolerant of other views so you cast ignorant stereotypes on those who subscribe to them. Rush’s ditthoeads do the same. You are all alike.

mike

September 24th, 2009
8:51 am

USinUK –

Duly noted :)

USinUK

September 24th, 2009
8:53 am

kayaker –

“At least we had someone to laugh about from time to time.”

see: Michelle Bachmann

RW –

“if one holds that view they shouldn’t be giving speeches saying they’ll stand and support anyone that yearns to be free since all they’re really prepared to do is watch them get slaughtered in the street”

mmm … I understand where you’re coming from, but what are the options? (that’s not a sarcastic inquiry, I’d really be interested to know how you think the iranian elections should have been handled … particularly given our frought history with the country)

Paul

September 24th, 2009
8:53 am

Good morning, RW-(the original)

Hero and Ando were discussing (subtitles) their new business, Dial a Hero. Hero’s sister was upset with the yen spent and vowed not one yen more. Ando looked at an old pic of the three of them and said how Heroe’s sister, whom he loved, hated him ever since as youngsters he spilled a slushie on her. Hero wanted to go back in time to fix it.

md

September 24th, 2009
8:53 am

” Call it “allowing” through benign neglect, not anything nefarious. I don’t think there was a conspiracy, I just think that ignorance allowed it to happen.”

Just curious, but since many of the hijackers came into the country while Clinton was still in office, does the “ignorance” apply to both Bush and Clinton?

Doggone/GA

September 24th, 2009
8:53 am

“You can not think that Bush may have been behind 9/11 without being a truly evil person”

But the question on the survey said nothing about Bush being “behind” 911. Look up the mulitple definitions of “allow” – especially, as I posted above, this one: “to permit by neglect, oversight, or the like:”

RW-(the original)

September 24th, 2009
8:54 am

the enmity and mistrust and noncooperation that existed between Federal agencies

Paul,

Let’s not leave out the legal barrier that barred cooperation between the FBI and CIA.

USinUK,

I really hate to go back down this worn out path, but have you ever really read the 8/6/01 PDB? If you have please tell us what specific action you would have taken based on that report.

Paul

September 24th, 2009
8:56 am

USinUK 8:48

Thanks for the link. My brother had sent me a link to the NY Times this morning regarding this, but no pic. I find it amazing that after all these centuries coming can go tramping about on well-used farmland and discover something such as this.

USinUK

September 24th, 2009
8:56 am

Paul –

“yet we cling to the belief that the tragedy of 9-11 might have been averted, that the enmity and mistrust and noncooperation that existed between Federal agencies; that the public would be willing to endure odious measures in the face of a nonspecific threat; that years of procedures and policies …”

here’s the thing: had the Cole not happened only months before Bush took office and had there NOT been a significant change in priorities at the DoJ, I’d be right there with you. But the Cole DID happen – and Ashcroft DID move terrorism down the list of priorities (behind infringements of 2nd amendment rights) … could it have been averted? I honestly don’t know. What I DO think is that it was irresponsible to not keep terrorism at the top of the charts after our military was just attacked.

danjonglee

September 24th, 2009
8:57 am

Van Jones….

ByteMe

September 24th, 2009
8:58 am

RW-(the original)

September 24th, 2009
8:59 am

USinUK,

I don’t really care about how the Irani elections were conducted, but when they were over a large number of oppressed people took to the streets yearning to be free and our President who now says he’ll stand with any people like that said it was none of our business. It’s the difference between words and actions and all BO has is words.

Paul,

Thanks. After the cat incident and then the time travel back to the carnival it started to fall into place. I don’t think it’s a great idea that Hiro has decided his new mission is to go back and right wrongs, but it sure gives the writers lots of leeway.

Paul

September 24th, 2009
9:01 am

DoggoneGA 8:53

I will offer that while that is technically correct, the point was lost on the vast number of respondents who heard the question.

It’s the same as poll results asking if white America should apologize for slavery. Technically, an apology doesn’t have to mean responsibility, it can be simply an expression of sympathy or regret. But I’d also guess that distinction would be lost on the vast majority of respondents.

So I’d have to say for many respondents there’s a huge element of knowing beforehand implied.

md

September 24th, 2009
9:03 am

“but if one holds that view they shouldn’t be giving speeches saying they’ll stand and support anyone that yearns to be free since all they’re really prepared to do is watch them get slaughtered in the street.”

I get this picture of Barry in his cheerleader skirt jumping up and down rooting for the students of Iran. My vision pretty much stops there, as does Barry’s efforts.

Taxpayer

September 24th, 2009
9:03 am

If some dumba$$ pollster were to ask me such stupid questions, I would either give them the stupid answer that their employer may even be hoping for or else tell them to place their stupid poll where it belongs, no matter how much their employer balks at the idea. Then again, most of these people are just trying to make a living. Doing whatever job is available in an effort to put food on the family.

But, the bottom line is that Bush thought that he had an experienced, educated, talented and trustworthy group of people in the likes of Dick, Donald, and others that he could just turn these presidential matters over to and focus his efforts on things like reading children’s books. He was wrong. Nothing new there. That’s what the polls need to reflect regarding the ‘truther’ issue. For, with the ‘truthers’, they have a real basis for their feelings — loss of real lives and property. They have 9/11 to look back on and they have the failure of the Bush administration to back up any of its stated claims for going to war such as terrorists in Iraq or WMDs, etc. The truth is that oil companies were actually kicked out of Iraq and the truth is that oil companies wanted back in and given the Bush administration’s ties with oil and the Bush administration’s dependence on lies as justification for invading Iraq, the ‘truthers’ have likely made what appears, to themselves, to be a very logical connection of the dots.

The same cannot be said for the facts regarding Obama’s birth and the ‘birther’ movement. They have nothing factual at all to support any claim whatsoever and that is what the Supremes have told those that took all their evidence before them. I mean, good Gog, what is wrong with these fruitcakes. The least they should do is produce something real to base their nutty claims on.

USinUK

September 24th, 2009
9:03 am

RW –

“I really hate to go back down this worn out path, but have you ever really read the 8/6/01 PDB? If you have please tell us what specific action you would have taken based on that report.”

I have – (due to discussions like this) read the entire PDB. Given the fact that I know someone who used to work with the NSC (in the Bush I and Clinton years), I know that he could have convened the NSC and required them to open all their channels to pursue any chatter, at the very least.

as I said above, given the fact that our military was just attacked a couple of months before he took office, he should not have taken any briefing like that as a much more imminent threat – particularly since an aide felt it so critical that he flew down to TX to deliver it in person (to which Bush dismissed him with “you covered your butt”).

RW-(the original)

September 24th, 2009
9:05 am

USinUK,

Nice specifics. /sarc

The last paragraph said there were currently 70 full field FBI investigations in the US that were considered Bin Laden related. That hardly sounds like nothing was being done.

Paul

September 24th, 2009
9:05 am

USinUK

And US territory (homeland and embassies) had been previously attacked. Yet the response to the Cole (preBush) was to treat it as a law enforcement matter. Nothing new there. When an alQaeda attack left scores of Americans dead at Khobar Towers, what did we do? Sent in the FBI.

That’s my point about the consistency. We’d been consistent for years. An averted strike at the WTC in 1993, attacks against embassies, attacks against a warship – the pattern was there, the pattern of response was the same. The mindset was the same. It’s sad, but it’s just the way things work.

mike

September 24th, 2009
9:06 am

Doggone –

“But the question on the survey said nothing about Bush being “behind” 911. Look up the mulitple definitions of “allow” – especially, as I posted above, this one: “to permit by neglect, oversight, or the like:”

I am starting to think that nobody actually read the article before moving onto Pavlovian jabbering.

The question states:

““Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?”

What is unclear about that? The above question is very clear: he allowed it to happen because he wanted war. That has nothing to do with “neglect” or “oversight”.

Doggone/GA

September 24th, 2009
9:09 am

“So I’d have to say for many respondents there’s a huge element of knowing beforehand implied”

Another reason I never respond to polls. FAR, FAR too many times I can’t answer the question, as asked, with the choices they want me to use.

USinUK

September 24th, 2009
9:10 am

md –

“Just curious, but since many of the hijackers came into the country while Clinton was still in office, does the “ignorance” apply to both Bush and Clinton?”

of course it does. the attacks on the Towers, the African embassies and the Cole were during the Clinton administration – I don’t diminish his responsibility at all. HOWEVER – at least his DoJ made terrorism their #1 priority and at least he had regular briefings with Richard Clarke and the NSC. in other words, at least Clinton made it a priority, whereas, coming into office after all that, Bush did not.

Joey

September 24th, 2009
9:11 am

I agree with GOP is gone (8:01).

Other subjects that Jay might have chosen:
New discoveries of oil in California and the world.
Some lawmakers request 72 hours in which to read proposed legislation prior to voting.
Plush toilet paper condemned by Natural Resources Defense Council.
Some time next week our debt will exceed $7 trillion.
What has become of Yosi Sergant?

md

September 24th, 2009
9:11 am

” had the Cole not happened only months before Bush took office and had there NOT been a significant change in priorities at the DoJ, I’d be right there with you.”

The first WTC attack occurred in 1993 on Clinton’s watch. Would it be fair to blame him after a short time in office – no. But, the hijackers entered the US while he was still in office. What happened with that? Did he let his guard down or does it only apply to Bush.

Partisanship answers that question differently, but they are very comparable.

jconservative

September 24th, 2009
9:11 am

I have a lot of friends on the left & on the right – I would say that the percentages on the poll are not that far off.

mike

September 24th, 2009
9:13 am

USinUK –

What actions should have been taken based on the vague PDB memo. Then tell me that folks like Jay and Keith Olbermann would have been fine with those actions.

Near as I can tell, there were really only two things that could have been done: arrest suspects who have yet to commit a crime based on weak evidence and implement post 9/12 style airport security.

Large parts of our citizenry still doubt whether the above two remedies are legitimate after 9/11. You gonna tell me that these folks would have been cool with that before 9/11? Please. Olbermann and Bookman would have been declaring an end to civil liberties and you know it.

The same is true for Clinton and the coice not to take out Bin Laden when he had the chance. America did not have a taste for assassinations then. We do now. I don’t fault Clinton for not acting then, as there was no political will to take those steps. I would say the same is true of Bush as well.

Paul

September 24th, 2009
9:14 am

USinUK

[[he could have convened the NSC and required them to open all their channels to pursue any chatter, at the very least.]]

And that’s one of the big problems we had. The AQ assets had been in place for months and months. Living among us. Attending flight school. Another flight school had reported suspicions to the authorities. The operation was underway, in motion and on course. The NSC was not going to conduct domestic surveillance of – what did RW say, 70 cases? – to analyze chatter. There’d have had to have been a lot more probable cause than “we’ve thought for a while OBL wanted to attack us, we’ve speculated on methods, one of them is airliners and we’ve got these Saudi guys in flight school…”

We’d like to think some heroic methods, diligent effort and good intentions could avert a tragedy, just like Hero going back in time. But as people who take 24 literally like to point out, ‘this isn’t television.’

USinUK

September 24th, 2009
9:15 am

RW –

“Nice specifics. /sarc”

coming from someone who, when asked what he would do about the Iranian situation, said “I don’t really care about how the Irani elections were conducted, but when they were over a large number of oppressed people took to the streets yearning to be free and our President who now says he’ll stand with any people like that said it was none of our business. It’s the difference between words and actions and all BO has is words”, you’ll pardon me if I guffaw in your general direction.

“The last paragraph said there were currently 70 full field FBI investigations in the US that were considered Bin Laden related. That hardly sounds like nothing was being done.”

and the president gave no direction on what to do with any of them.

“you covered your butt”

Normal

September 24th, 2009
9:17 am

Mike, good morning…
You asked: “Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because
he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?”

I would answer that there is certainly enough “so called” evidence out there that would make the Conspiracy Mongers, out there to suspect that.
In the very aftermath of the disaster, there were doubts about if it was a plane that hit the Penagon or a missle, there was the slow motion film of the towers falling that suggested that they were taken down by controlled explosions much like you would take down an old building in the middle of town. The extreme left, the true Bush haters took that and ran with it, but…who really knows? This is just like the JFK assassination, no one will ever know for sure. At its worst, it’s another wedge between two sides that need no more wedges. At best, it’s a great conversation over beer and wings.

USinUK

September 24th, 2009
9:17 am

Paul -

“The NSC was not going to conduct domestic surveillance of – what did RW say, 70 cases? – to analyze chatter. There’d have had to have been a lot more probable cause than “we’ve thought for a while OBL wanted to attack us, we’ve speculated on methods, one of them is airliners and we’ve got these Saudi guys in flight school…””

do you not remember that there were already alarms raised about these flight schools – since none of the guys cared to learn about how to land. the alarms were raised. the scenarios of how they would attack were already analyzed as a real possibility (low tech like the Cole attack).

the ball was well and truly dropped.

Paul

September 24th, 2009
9:18 am

DoggoneGA

I’ve had surveys where there was not a ‘none of the above.’ It’s a good point.

Mike had a good point, too. The word ‘intentionally’ kind of makes clear there was no ambiguity.

md

September 24th, 2009
9:20 am

“The truth is that oil companies were actually kicked out of Iraq and the truth is that oil companies wanted back in and given the Bush administration’s ties with oil and the Bush administration’s dependence on lies as justification for invading Iraq, the ‘truthers’ have likely made what appears, to themselves, to be a very logical connection of the dots. ”

If that is the truth, then lets continue to follow the dots:

We invaded for oil
Current contracts for oil are with many countries, many of which did not support the war
We have 100k+ soldiers still in the country

Sorry, but the dots tell me that if I have 100k+ troops in the country and it was all about the oil, those other countries sure as hell aren’t getting any of my oil.

Kamchak

September 24th, 2009
9:20 am

USinUK

Thanks for the video yesterday. I now have a new favorite comedian.

RW-(the original)

September 24th, 2009
9:21 am

USinUK,

The difference would be that I never said a thing about the Iranian elections and you specifically said Bush could have changed the course of history by paying more attention to that PDB.

USinUK

September 24th, 2009
9:23 am

md –

“The first WTC attack occurred in 1993 on Clinton’s watch. Would it be fair to blame him after a short time in office – no. But, the hijackers entered the US while he was still in office. What happened with that?”

do you have any idea how many people enter this country on a daily basis? given that none of the hijackers had any history that would trip an alarm, they all entered legally on tourist visas (except one who entered on a student visa), what should have been done? wiretap everyone who is here as a tourist?

RW-(the original)

September 24th, 2009
9:24 am

OH NO!!! I have to head to the forest and it’s mighty cloudy out there. DoggoneGA, would you please predict a day of rain? Thanks in advance.

Later y’all.

Mrs. Godzilla

September 24th, 2009
9:25 am

How’s about this for a nutter:

In a column for Townhall.com, action star and conservative activist Chuck Norris calls on tea partiers to stop using the modern American flag as a means of protest against the current administration. And if you insist on using the 50-star flag, well, you can buy a tea-stained one for just $73.50 to show “solidarity with our Founders.”

here:

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/chuck-norris-stop-using-the-modern-american-flag—-or-use-tea-stained-ones.php?ref=fpa

Now I completely support his right to desecrate the flag as part of a peaceful protest, but he better watch out. We know that kind of a sensitive issue with some on the right.

Isn’t it?

mike

September 24th, 2009
9:26 am

The Bush question leaves no doubt as to the evil motive. As a result the question will only catch those that are “truthers”.

The Obama question is much more open and doesn’t address whether the respondent knows or cares about the naturalized birth requirement for Presidents. As are result, the question will catch many people who are not “birthers”.

Like the Daily Kos polls that Jay relies on so heavily, this poll was conducted by a partisan organization with the intent of skewing the numbers. That is why it has been sourced by both Jay and Cynthia Tucker in the past 24 hours.

This kind of distortion of the truth is conducted by both sides and is so destructive to our democracy. When it gets to the point that people either have to passively absorb partisan spin or spend time unspinning the information they are provided, it is really tough to gain understanding and compromise. This is why pundits like Rush and Jay are cancer to our society.

Paul

September 24th, 2009
9:27 am

USinUK

Yes, I remember. I also seem to recall FBI had investigated and closed the cases. Some of them – even Moussaoui, if I remember correctly, were never sent to the top. That’s part of my point on the nature of bureaucracies: an agency gets a call ‘tell us what’s out there that’s an imminent danger.’ The likelihood that a field unit is going to upchannel a case that’s been investigated and closed is quite low. Before it goes forward the heads of the agency are going to want all kinds of background and information and recommendations so they’re prepared for the meetings. And in M’s case, heck, we didn’t even know he was connected.

So of course I agree the Bush Administration could have done more. I just don’t think it would have made a difference.

USinUK

September 24th, 2009
9:27 am

RW –

you were the one who brought up Iran when you said “Tell that one to Neda and the rest of the Iranian people that yearned to be free and equal, Barry. Words…just words.” …

all I asked is “I understand where you’re coming from, but what are the options?”

to which I received your non-answer. so. please. no sarcasm about my response which, when compared with yours, was an Encyclopedia Britannica of a reply.

Normal

September 24th, 2009
9:28 am

USinUK, What Kam said at 9;20. I had to go home to view it and discovered I will need “Depends” when watching him again! :D

Taxpayer

September 24th, 2009
9:28 am

If that is the truth, then lets continue to follow the dots:

We invaded for oil
Current contracts for oil are with many countries, many of which did not support the war
We have 100k+ soldiers still in the country

Sorry, but the dots tell me that if I have 100k+ troops in the country and it was all about the oil, those other countries sure as hell aren’t getting any of my oil.

Just like a birther or a truther or any other person, you are certainly entitled to your own game of dots.

USinUK

September 24th, 2009
9:29 am

Paul –

“So of course I agree the Bush Administration could have done more. I just don’t think it would have made a difference.”

which is basically what I’m saying – I really don’t know if doing a full-court press could/would have prevented 9/11 from happening. but, wouldn’t we all have been a little comforted if it had?

Shawny

September 24th, 2009
9:29 am

Polls can be skewed to give the answer someone wants to hear, if they are written and delivered a certain way.
What I find interesting, is that there is no birth certificate. Therefore, there is no absolute proof of the prez being US born. I don’t think that he wasn’t, but regardless, we don’t know for sure.

Regarding the truthers, there is no proof that their claim is true. Birthers are making statements that can’t be proven false, while truthers are making statements that can’t be proven true. There is a difference.

md

September 24th, 2009
9:31 am

“and the president gave no direction on what to do with any of them.”

A so called “chickenhawk” administration takes office after the bombing of a US warship, and we are led to believe that there was nothing going on behind the scenes.

Paul

September 24th, 2009
9:31 am

Mrs. Godzilla

Chuck Norris asking protestors to not use the current American flag in such situations makes him a nutter?!!? Jay did a thread questioning why some on the right use the flag for all sorts of purposes, Norris asks people to cool it and you think that’s nutty?

Taxpayer

September 24th, 2009
9:31 am

Hind sight is always, usually, most times 20/20. So, why didn’t the airlines just bite the bullet.

Curiously, there was a push to reinforce cockpit doors long before Sept. 11. We go back to 1987, when a recently fired ground worker, David Burke, used his credentials, which his employer had failed to recover, to carry a concealed handgun onto Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771 from Los Angeles to San Francisco. En route he broke into the cockpit, shot both pilots, and nosed the airplane into the ground near Harmony, Calif., killing all 44 on board.

Unbelievable as it might sound, the government’s response to the incident was not to implement security screening for ground personnel, but for pilots and flight attendants instead! It was a public relations gimmick — passengers now saw crews having to wait in the same annoying security lines, making them feel safer — completely useless at preventing another David Burke.

The airlines meanwhile resisted the idea of upgrading the doors, on the grounds that it was expensive and unnecessary.

mike

September 24th, 2009
9:32 am

Normal –

I disagree with your analysis. I think that it is cancerous to our society when a large segment of the population thinks that there government is willing to kill them.

It is also a pretty awful reflection of ourselves as a culture where intolerance to other’s politics makes it easy to believe that their leaders are murderers, particularly when there is no evidence of that and the logistics of pulling it off and keeping it quiet would be impossible.

This demonization of folks who hold contrary political views is facilitated by the relentless propaganda put out by war profiteers like Jay and Michael Savage.

Paul

September 24th, 2009
9:34 am

USinUK

The cynic in me says it might have been worse. “You had this information, how could you miss it?” “Why didn’t you grant the warrant?” “Who made the decision to drop surveillance of N?” Pretty much the same stuff would have existed that the 9-11 Commission pointed out, except there’d be a lot of low-level people to crucify.

Normal

September 24th, 2009
9:37 am

Mike, I’ll have to google Savage, but how is Jay a war profiteer? Does he own stock in General Dynamics? You are going to have to explain that one…

Taxpayer

September 24th, 2009
9:37 am

A so called “chickenhawk” administration takes office after the bombing of a US warship, and we are led to believe that there was nothing going on behind the scenes.

Ah yes, the makings of another ‘truther’ poll. Perhaps we shall need further differentiation. The Clinton ‘truthers’ and the BushII ‘truthers’. Well, that just leaves the ‘birthers’ all alone. I think Reagan was from Venus. After all, he was a real wussie.

Mrs. Godzilla

September 24th, 2009
9:37 am

Paul….

I just think it’s dangerous for him to stain the stars and stripes as not all folks are as liberal as I when it comes to that kind of thing.

Or have I missed something and the right has changed their mind on desecration?

USinUK

September 24th, 2009
9:38 am

Kam and Normal –

“Thanks for the video yesterday. I now have a new favorite comedian.”

I’m SO glad you liked it! He is an absolute laugh-effing-riot and worth the time spent on youtube!

md

September 24th, 2009
9:38 am

“do you have any idea how many people enter this country on a daily basis? given that none of the hijackers had any history that would trip an alarm, they all entered legally on tourist visas (except one who entered on a student visa), what should have been done? wiretap everyone who is here as a tourist?”

If ‘93 had been treated as a worst case scenario such as if the bombing was successful and brought the tower down, then yes, we should have been doing then what we are doing now. Why does it always take the loss of life for our gov’t to do anything.

Reminds me of local gov’t installing traffic lights – they only act after a number of people have been killed at an intersection, and some will even tell you that.

Normal

September 24th, 2009
9:40 am

I think that it is cancerous to our society when a large segment of the population thinks that there government is willing to kill them.

Mike our Government willingly killed 58+thousand over ten years and are willingly killing 4000+ more now and that’s through four administrations,
Or does killing soldiers not count?