posted
I'm curious whether any democrats find this sad.
quote:Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.
Now Rasmussen Reports claims this to be evenly divided, but I don't see it that way.
It looks to me like 61% of Democrats believe it's at least possible that George Bush would have been willing to let 3,000 people die on 9/11.
No, scratch that. Because normally there are tens of thousands of people in the towers. Bush would have had to have been willing to let tens of thousands of people die to allow 9/11 to happen.
And a third of democrats really see that as a certainty, and another third refuse to dismiss it as silly?
I don't understand what I'm supposed to think about Bush.
Sometimes I'm told he's an ignorant clod who sneaks back to drink in secret while smarter (and eviler) guys than him run the country.
Sometimes I'm told he'sthe evil one, and is trying to become emperor of the world so that his oil buddies can make extra money.
And sometimes he's crazy man who thinks God talks to him who is set on making the whole world Christian.
So my questions for Democrats are:
1. What do you think of the results of this poll?
2. How "Evil" is the president?
3. Who is George Bush, as you see it?
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I rarely look to a subject's opponents when laying the foundation of an opinion.
Scratch that, I just don't.
Opposing political parties having the lowest of opinions of each other is nothing new in politics.
The south left the union when Lincoln was elected, thats got to be at least marginally worse then Democrats who choose to still interact with Bush and his administration right now.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the way that this is presented is accurate, I'm very surprised. It's hard to say without seeing the poll questions though.
The question could be akin to whether or not they had intelligence that it would happen. In which case, I'd answer a weak yes.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's too uncommon for the arguments of the lunatic fringe to be picked up and believed -- even a little -- by a significant percentage of partisans. Look at how many Republicans believed that Clinton was a drug-running rapist.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.
posted
I'm with Squicky on thinking the phrasing of the questions was different than what's being reported.
quote:How "Evil" is the president?
I was actually just thinking about this topic. I think that Bush's intent is probably good. I think he most likely sees the war as being about terrorism instead of oil. I think this requires a high level of cognitive dissonance, but I don't think he's sitting around twirling his moustache and scheming. Regardless of his intent though, I consider the man to be quite evil. I think he consistently deludes himself by surrounding himself with people of similar viewpoints and that his delusions have cost tens of thousands of lives. I think his administration is incredibly corrupt. From wire tapping to Guatanamo to firing federal prosecuters, Bush has made it clear that he doesn't want to follow the rules about seperation of powers. Instead, he gathers up all the power for himself to do what he believes needs doing. I don't think the best of intentions can make up for this willfull disregard of our laws and of the reality of situations, especially when the cost is so high.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't think it's too uncommon for the arguments of the lunatic fringe to be picked up and believed -- even a little -- by a significant percentage of partisans. Look at how many Republicans believed that Clinton was a drug-running rapist.
posted
Bush has been so gung ho about the war, regardless of setbacks, regardless of public opinion, regardless of its lack or progress, regardless of generals who say it's being mismanaged... it's pretty obvious this war is his baby. He also doesn't seem to mind allowing thousands of US soldiers die over there, for what most people see as little real gain.
It's not a huge leap from there.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:He also doesn't seem to mind allowing thousands of US soldiers die over there, for what most people see as little real gain.
I don't know how you could possibly know how Bush feels about our soldiers dying in the thousands out there. Do you have an insider with information the general public is not privy to?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I should have said that Bush clearly, by his words and actions, feels that the deaths of thousands of US soldiers in the War On Terror are justified and well spent. If he does mind, it isn't enough to make him rethink our involvement.
I've also never seen him give a speech saying how our losses are becoming unacceptable, but rather he's said many times that we're going to stay over there as long as he's President, come hell or high water, and nobody else can do a damn thing about it.
I have never seen any evidence that the President knew about 9/11 before it happened, but I think he's shown himself to be exactly the kind of person who would not be above sacrificing thousands of lives if he felt it served a greater good: making war with Iraq easy to get into, and allowing massive inroads towards taking away personal freedoms and privacy and keeping the population cowed with fear of terrorist threats.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have never seen any evidence that the President knew about 9/11 before it happened, but I think he's shown himself to be exactly the kind of person who would not be above sacrificing thousands of lives if he felt it served a greater good: making war with Iraq easy to get into, and allowing massive inroads towards taking away personal freedoms and privacy and keeping the population cowed with fear of terrorist threats.
Not that you need evidence to support that kind of thinking--because you already think he's such a wretchedly evil person, the "absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence", so to speak, for such a conspirator-but do you actually have any?
Let's start with one claim: aside from personal belief-another word for it would be prejudice-do you have any real evidence that he is allowing "massive inroads" towards taking away personal freedoms and privacy in order to use fear as a club to cow the public?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Do I need to prove to you that the sky is blue or are you gonna quibble that its really a prism of colours based on the angle of light hitting the atmosphere.
IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, it's blue because of an angle-independant scattering effect that favors blue over other colors.
If what you said was true, the sky would change colors as the sun moved. The red at sunset is a different phenomenon.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: do you have any real evidence that he is allowing "massive inroads" towards taking away personal freedoms and privacy in order to use fear as a club to cow the public?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
I guess you haven't heard about the wire-tapping, arrests without trial or representation, patriot act, terror threat levels, no-fly lists...
I guess you're right though. He's not really allowing these things to happen, he's actively pushing them forward.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is unsurprising and sad. Then again the other side has had significant percentages of partisans who believed that Saddam had a hand in 9/11.
There just seems to be idiots in both parties. Nothing gets groups of people energized than clear heroes and villains no matter how erroneously identified, I guess.
posted
1. When I read the phrase, "George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance," I'm not certain what they mean.
Is it that Bush had the terrorists' plan and timetable in front of him and said, "Hot diggity! We're letting this one go through, boys. Think of the domestic blunt instrument we can make out of this!"
Or is it that Bush was given ample evidence that there was a very real threat, but decided that he really needed to clear some brush instead.
2. From what I know of Bush, I wouldn't call him evil.
3. Misguided, arrogant, deluded, and out of his depth, maybe. But not evil.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't think it's too uncommon for the arguments of the lunatic fringe to be picked up and believed -- even a little -- by a significant percentage of partisans. Look at how many Republicans believed that Clinton was a drug-running rapist.
Exactly.
Exactly what?
I don't know any Reupublicans who thought that Clinton was a drug-running rapist. Never seen or heard any allegations about Clinton being a drug runner. Where'd you ever hear that before.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think any president would allow 3000 US citizens to be killed if they knew about it before hand.
I agree with Bok. I also immediately thought of the shocking percentage of people who thought (some idiots still think it even now, with no evidence!) Saddam planned 9/11.
I have been against almost all of President Bush's major policies since after the Afghanistan War, with the exception of his moderate stance on immigration. But I don't know if he's evil. That's not a word I throw around lightly.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Bush knew that 9/11 specifically was going to happen. I do think he was made aware of the possibility of Al-Qaeda sponsored attacks against our country, and did not act in a timely fashion to deal with this possibility. So, no, I don't hold him personally responsible.
I do think that the homeland security department that Clinton was trying to get started right before he left office was ignored. And I think that has less to do with Bush using American lives to further his agenda, than it does with Bush and most Republicans trying to thwart absolutely everything Clinton tried to do. It's kind of like what the Democrats are doing now. Well, if Bush came up with it let's thwart it, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. Partisan politics are ridiculous. Neither side can honestly claim they are right about everything all the time.
Posts: 511 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: It looks to me like 61% of Democrats believe it's at least possible that George Bush would have been willing to let 3,000 people die on 9/11.
No, scratch that. Because normally there are tens of thousands of people in the towers. Bush would have had to have been willing to let tens of thousands of people die to allow 9/11 to happen.
Without making any statement on my actual opinion on this topic, I would like to point out that believing that Bush knew about the terrorist attacks in advance is not the same as beliveing that Bush was willing to sacrifice thousands in the attack. The planes themselves would not have had even remotely as huge a body count without the collapse of the towers. While it is still a lot of people to sacrifice, it is a lot easier to imagine someone "justifying away" a couple hundred or so lives for some percieved greater good than it is to imagine them doing the same for several thousand.
Again, this doesn't mean I believe that he had prior knowledge, just that I disagree with your interpretation of the survey.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The existence of such things is far from proof of the ridiculous claims you're making.
What ridiculous claims have I made? I said Bush isn't above sacrificing lives if he feels it serves a greater good. I think the war clearly shows that. I said that he wants to deprive American citizens of their freedoms, and keep the population afraid of terrorist threats, which I think is clearly proven by the very examples I pointed out.
What other ridiculous claims do you feel that I'm making, which are not substantiated?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't think it's too uncommon for the arguments of the lunatic fringe to be picked up and believed -- even a little -- by a significant percentage of partisans. Look at how many Republicans believed that Clinton was a drug-running rapist.
Exactly.
Exactly what?
I don't know any Reupublicans who thought that Clinton was a drug-running rapist. Never seen or heard any allegations about Clinton being a drug runner. Where'd you ever hear that before.
I heard many republicans say that Clinton because he had used drugs in the past and was so evasive with his, "I didn't inhale" comment that he likely still used drugs in office. They also said his sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky were rape as he abused his powers to get her to consent.
Not saying I agree with it, but you said nobody called him a drug runner rapist.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't think it's too uncommon for the arguments of the lunatic fringe to be picked up and believed -- even a little -- by a significant percentage of partisans. Look at how many Republicans believed that Clinton was a drug-running rapist.
Exactly.
Exactly what?
I don't know any Reupublicans who thought that Clinton was a drug-running rapist. Never seen or heard any allegations about Clinton being a drug runner. Where'd you ever hear that before.
I heard many republicans say that Clinton because he had used drugs in the past and was so evasive with his, "I didn't inhale" comment that he likely still used drugs in office. They also said his sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky were rape as he abused his powers to get her to consent.
Not saying I agree with it, but you said nobody called him a drug runner rapist.
What exactly is "many" here. While I've heard a lot of bad things about Clinton, I've never heard this particular one before from anybody.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Criminey, look somebody said nobody ever accused Clinton of doing those things. I was a republican back in the Clinton days, and I heard people say those things, heck I might still vote republican come next election so me writing them now means it has been said. I don't know why we are plumbing me for arbitrary numbers.
If we are talking about Republican politicians holding political office then NO I know of nobody who said those things specifically. If we are talking about Republicans in the country there is at least ONE person who said it and therefore it was said.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: We have conducted Clinton Rapist Protests in 143 cities, from Auckland New Zealand, to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, following the former president to dozens of cities.
quote:I said Bush isn't above sacrificing lives if he feels it serves a greater good.
Yeah, and neither is anyone else. But that's not all you said, either.
quote:I said that he wants to deprive American citizens of their freedoms, and keep the population afraid of terrorist threats, which I think is clearly proven by the very examples I pointed out.
Nor is that what you said.
quote:I have never seen any evidence that the President knew about 9/11 before it happened, but I think he's shown himself to be exactly the kind of person who would not be above sacrificing thousands of lives if he felt it served a greater good: making war with Iraq easy to get into, and allowing massive inroads towards taking away personal freedoms and privacy and keeping the population cowed with fear of terrorist threats.
That's what you said. You're not just saying that you think President Bush is the sort of person who would sacrifice the lives of soldiers for the greater good, you're saying he's exactly the kind of person (another way of saying that is that he is that person) who would do deliberate, calculated harm to the United States to serve his aims.
As well as murdering thousands of civilians.
That's a ridiculous claim, and you have no evidence for it. You make your own case look bad by making such silly statements.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're not just saying that you think President Bush is the sort of person who would sacrifice the lives of soldiers for the greater good, you're saying he's exactly the kind of person (another way of saying that is that he is that person) who would do deliberate, calculated harm to the United States to serve his aims.
As well as murdering thousands of civilians.
Where does he do any of this?
Everything MC said was couched in doing it for the greater good, not his own personal aims. And MC said nothing about murdering anyone.
You seem to be the one making ridiculous claims.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, permitting thousands of civilians to die when you could have stopped it-particularly when you have a duty to stop it-isn't that pretty clearly murder?
I'm willing to write that off to a subjective difference, but to me, it's murder.
"His personal aims" and "what he thinks is the greater good", there's not really much difference between the two, is there?
No, since he pretty clearly has suggested President Bush is "exactly the kind of person" who would be a mass murderer-even if he did not say so explicitly-my claims aren't ridiculous.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
It seems to me that if you are a Democrat then Bill Clinton did nothing wrong and was persecuted by Evil Republicans, while any rumor, half-truth, falsification about Bush should be believed 100%. Believing is Seeing when looking at Clinton and Bush.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, in much the same way that there is no difference between stabbing someone as part of a robbery versus cutting into him as part of surgery.
Yes, in much the same way that slicing open the man on the operating table's neck without his consent to harvest organs for three other needy people remains murder.
Edit: It's interesting, that MightyCow is the one who is suggesting President Bush is "exactly the kind of person" who would murder thousands of innocent people, and I'm the one who's being absurd.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, No matter how many times you say that MC said that Bush would murder people, it's never going to be true. He didn't say it.
And it should be noted that President Bush did get us into an war in Iraq without an imminent or even short term threat and he has pushed pretty strongly to descrease privacy and certain types of individual rights. And he's claimed to be doing these things for the greater good.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was trying to figure out how to reply to Rakeesh, but MrSquicky has been doing quite well. Thanks.
It's absurdly difficult to make a case for yourself when someone isn't arguing with what you actually said, but with their own interpretation of what you said.
Do I think Bush would personally blow up a dozen US soldiers? No.
Do I think Bush would tell a dozen US soldiers to drive down a street in an unarmored vehicle, without adequate personal body armor, in an area where insurgents are known to blow up soldiers? Yes.
It's up to you to decide if they amount to the same thing.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are degrees of murder, Mr. Squicky and MightyCow. I coulda sworn I read that somewhere, in fact...
quote:No matter how many times you say that MC said that Bush would murder people, it's never going to be true. He didn't say it.
I've already acknlowdged the subjective nature of the word 'murder', although I hasten to point out that if, as MightyCow implies, President Bush did let 9-11 happen, it certainly was murder in the legal sense in most if not all of the United States.
(Oh, wait, he didn't say that President Bush did that...he just said that President Bush has proven himself exactly the kind of man who would do that. Big difference there)
quote:Do I think Bush would tell a dozen US soldiers to drive down a street in an unarmored vehicle, without adequate personal body armor, in an area where insurgents are known to blow up soldiers? Yes.
Yes or no: If President Bush gave such an order, and did so for reasons not specifically related to the mission at hand-even if for what he terms "the greater good"-would that be murder? Or at least manslaughter?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're putting words in people's mouths, Rakeesh. And you're trying to get clarification merely in the hope that that clarification will justify your view that their beliefs are "ridiculous" and "absurd". I don't see why anyone should humor that.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"His personal aims" and "what he thinks is the greater good", there's not really much difference between the two, is there?
Yes, in much the same way that there is no difference between stabbing someone as part of a robbery versus cutting into him as part of surgery.
You're being absurd.
More directly:
If Iraq is about preventing terrorism, or stabilizing the Middle East, or establishing a democracy in the region, or even protecting an unstable petroleum market, it could be said to be about "the greater good."
If Iraq is about securing a personal legacy, or funneling tax dollars into companies tied to the administration, or perpetuating a state of uncertainty wherein cowed representatives are less likely to check executive power, it could very easily be said to be about "his personal aims" without being about "the greater good".
Not that there's necessarily a strict either-or.
For my two cents on the original subject: I think there's pretty significant evidence that information about the Al-Qaeda threat was available pre 9/11/01, and that Bush either did not make himself privy to that information or did not find that information compelling (possibly because it came out of the Clinton administration.) That said, that's a far cry from knowing there was going to be a specific attack on a specific day and allowing it to happen. I don't know if, as the question was stated, any of the respondents were commenting on the former but not intending to imply the latter.
In calm, I really don't think Bush is a evil man. He may even be a good man. I just don't think he should ever have been allowed to rise to his current position.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, You're the one who keeps throwing the word murder around.
I'm just making an observation about Bush's values and goals, based on his own words and past actions. He has some sort of greater good or grand plan in mind for America and the War on Terror, and he has shown a dogged devotion to the War. In my mind, he has also shown serious disregard for the rights and privacy of Americans in the process. He has ignored or glossed over a great deal of advice and evidence which doesn't further his goals.
I have not seen any evidence that satisfied my natural disbelief that he had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Since that time, based on his actions and words, I would not be horribly surprised if I did at some time see credible evidence that he had information about the attacks which he disregarded or glossed over.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're putting words in people's mouths, Rakeesh. And you're trying to get clarification merely in the hope that that clarification will justify your view that their beliefs are "ridiculous" and "absurd". I don't see why anyone should humor that.
If someone says to me, "This crayon...it's a sort of really dark orange. Almost like the color of an apple," I'm not putting words in their mouth to say that the crayon is red, am I? Of course not.
quote:I have never seen any evidence that the President knew about 9/11 before it happened, but I think he's shown himself to be exactly the kind of person who would not be above sacrificing thousands of lives if he felt it served a greater good...
The implication here is obvious. You haven't seen any evidence that he knew about 9/11 before it happened, but you think he's exactly the kind of person who would permit 9/11 to happen. It's even in the same bloody sentence, everyone.
As for asking the question to get clarification, no, I don't need clarification for myself. I'm attempting to illustrate the flaw to others. And the question I asked-which MightyCow hasn't answered yet-was brought on by him, not me, stating his claim.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason some people believe Clinton is a rapist is that he was accused of rape by Juanita Broderick. The accusation was credible but there was no hard evidence.
It wasn't just his opponents that believed it. A significant majority at the time believed Broderick's accusation. At the same time a significant majority believed that Clinton should remain President. This disturbed me because it meant that a significant minority believed that a rapist should be President.
I have never heard before any accusation that Clinton was a drug runner. I hadn't heard accusations that he was a current drug user, either, but even if he had been, that is not the same as a drug runner.
So the situation with Clinton was very different. We had alleged eyewitness/victim testimony against him for rape, and it is not outrageous that a majority believed it although they really should have said "I don't know." If any group thought he was a drug runner that group was so small that we still have not heard from them.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have never seen any evidence that the President knew about 9/11 before it happened, but I think he's shown himself to be exactly the kind of person who would not be above sacrificing thousands of lives if he felt it served a greater good...
The implication here is obvious. You haven't seen any evidence that he knew about 9/11 before it happened, but you think he's exactly the kind of person who would permit 9/11 to happen. It's even in the same bloody sentence, everyone.
Well, you get an A+ for repeating what I said. Thanks for the extra exposure Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Bah Ill save my witty post for later.
IP: Logged |
posted
And you get an A+ for not answering a direct question, MightyCow. Thanks for further illustrating the point I'm making. *wink*
But, at least now you're backing off from your original statement-that Pres.Bush is 'exactly like' someone who would murder (oh, alright, 'permit to die when he could have stopped it' then, for whatever the hell difference that makes)-and saying you "wouldn't be surprised" if it turned out he let 9-11 happen.
And describe to me again, would you please, what term would you use to describe someone who is charged with defending people, and then permits them to be killed when he could have prevented it? When he had a duty to prevent it?
Can you honestly tell me you wouldn't call that murder? Is it only murder when the person has a bloodstained knife in their hands?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're putting words in people's mouths, Rakeesh. And you're trying to get clarification merely in the hope that that clarification will justify your view that their beliefs are "ridiculous" and "absurd". I don't see why anyone should humor that.
If someone says to me, "This crayon...it's a sort of really dark orange. Almost like the color of an apple," I'm not putting words in their mouth to say that the crayon is red, am I? Of course not.
quote:I have never seen any evidence that the President knew about 9/11 before it happened, but I think he's shown himself to be exactly the kind of person who would not be above sacrificing thousands of lives if he felt it served a greater good...
The implication here is obvious. You haven't seen any evidence that he knew about 9/11 before it happened, but you think he's exactly the kind of person who would permit 9/11 to happen. It's even in the same bloody sentence, everyone.
As for asking the question to get clarification, no, I don't need clarification for myself. I'm attempting to illustrate the flaw to others. And the question I asked-which MightyCow hasn't answered yet-was brought on by him, not me, stating his claim.
As far as I can tell, the only possible implication present that has anything to do with 9/11 is the observation that Bush’s agendas (whether selfish, utilitarian, or just plain senseless) and undeniably failed execution of this war clearly show that he is willing to continually sacrifice the lives of others for a cause unknown and/or unsupported by the majority of American citizens - arguably an offense not a whole lot worse than consciously allowing a terrorist attack on American soil to occur. In both cases, thousands of lives are lost directly due to intentional inaction.
While this opinion is rather direct, it is far from outrageous or unjustifiable.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Do I need to prove to you that the sky is blue or are you gonna quibble that its really a prism of colours based on the angle of light hitting the atmosphere.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
