| |
|
|
- Please refer to the Forum Rules Amended section for additional rules and modifications.
- This is a moderated forum, all posts will be checked for bad language and composition.
- Before you post in the information section, make sure the information you add is fully accurate.
- All posts within the local and national policy sections must be factually correct and substantively debatable.
- Feel free to be provocative or even politically incorrect, within the rules set.
- No threats, sexual or racist remarks of any nature will be tolerated. Any posts that violate these common sense rules will be removed. Your account may also be suspended after so many violations.
- Creating multiple accounts and pretending to be someone else will result in instant termination of all accounts. We check up on all accounts / IP addresses frequently. You must register and login in order to post within the forums. Your information will not be given out or sold for mailing lists.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
Gunrights
Posts:665
Senior User
Online Status:
Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion
 |
| 05/11/2007 1:28 PM |
|
|
Unhinged
By Mike Long
From Political Mavens
|
If these figures are accurate, the nation has a problem far greater than anything my cynical crowd ever imagined.
According to Rasmussen, 35 percent of Democrats believe President Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened. Another 26 percent are “not sure.”
This means three out of five Democrats believe the leader of the free world may have directly or indirectly hastened the mass murder of 3000 of his fellow Americans, then lied about his complicity for the next six years.
If they believe this, no wonder there is an “angry left.” But I wonder: If they really believed such a thing, wouldn’t they agitate for the violent overthrow of their government? Wouldn’t they take action? Wouldn’t any moral person?
The reality is not that these individuals truly believe this dreck, but that they are willing to offer up such hyperbole to other people in public–another sign that many people do not associate words with consequences. We live in a tragic time; America–rather, Americans themselves are in undeniable decline.
peace | |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/12/2007 8:34 AM |
|
I think that this goes to show that support for/opposition to the war in Iraq isn't about what is best for national security or global stability (including stability of the oil supply) or even what is best for our troops. It is about people who hate Bush. In spite of numerous claims to the contrary, there has been no evidence that anyone within our government had advanced knowledge of the 9/11 plots and the power to do anything to stop them. Claims of government involvement in the attacks are based on wildly misinterpreted data (my favorite was where on one conspiracy site they showed a plane hitting one of the towers, which was already smoking, without making an impact, apparently without realizing that they were watching a plan hit the south tower which was on the other side of the north tower that was in the front of the frame at the time).
For the record, Republicans hated Clinton just as much. I've read people's writing where they have praised the invasion of Iraq in response to the 9/11 attacks and in the same breath condemned Clinton for bombing Afghanistan in response to the African Embassy bombings during his term, which had also been carried out by Al Qaeda. I'll bet that if Hillary Clinton is elected president, we'll see the same problems again during her term. Really, whoever gets elected will probably face the same problem. Sometimes I miss the cold war. It was nice to have a country unified by its fear of a large, visible, common enemy. |
|
|
|
|
Debator
Posts:47
Advanced User
Online Status:
|
| 05/27/2007 8:38 AM |
|
I think that this goes to show that support for/opposition to the war in Iraq isn't about what is best for national security or global stability (including stability of the oil supply) or even what is best for our troops. It is about people who hate Bush.
It seems to me that the level of support that people show for the war in Iraq can be traced back to their feelings about Bush -- in some cases. However, there are many people who may feel good about Bush and nevertheless oppose the war in Iraq for legitimate policy reasons. I think that the problem comes when people conflate the purpose for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the events leading up to 9/11 and the reasons for invading Iraq. (but I can't really blame them, as the administration seems also to have conflated them). All four of these things are distinct.
This problem isn't unique to one side or the other. As the original post here indicates, some percentage of Democrats are conflating the reasons for invading Iraq and 9/11 (in the former Bush seems to have known that at least some of the reasons for the invasion were false; in the latter he seems to have had no knowledge). On the other hand, many Republicans believe that Saddam Hussein was somehow directly involved with 9/11. Neither of these positions is fully true.
Returning to the original post, I have a few problems with it. First, a more revealing statistic would be how many Americans believe that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened. By singling out Democrats, Mr. Long is making a partisan point, rather than a neutral one. If it turns out that 61% of Republicans believe that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened, would he make the same point?
Second, while there is no direct evidence that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened, there are some people (George Tenet being among them) who have suggested that they warned Bush about an impending terrorist attack in mid-2001 and he ordered them not to do anything about it. While I find these claims dubious, there are many who are eager for a reason to discredit Bush who will gladly accept these claims. |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/27/2007 2:13 PM |
|
Debator makes a good point. Not all opposition to the war is driven by a personal hatred of Bush (although I still feel that an awful lot of it is, but then again, it could just be a chicken/egg situation). Also, I too have been troubled by the tendency of people to forget that Iraq had essentially no ties to the 9/11 attacks (it appears that Bin Laden disliked Hussein, who he felt lacked proper Muslim convictions).
I've often thought about the supposed warnings that were given prior to the 9/11 attacks. If we assume that all of the people who say that they warned of the attacks were right (in saying that they had made the warning--we know that the attacks happened), then I still don't see how anything could have been done to stop them. The fact is that we were unprepared at that time to accept the draconian measures that we now (grudgingly) submit to every time we fly. Had we prevented the attacks, then we would not be willing to accept the fact that so many lives were saved (especially since most of the casualties were on the ground).
Back to the original article, I find it curious that the author doubts the belief of those surveyed, and then uses that doubt to paint a picture of America in decline. While I am sure that there are a few people who don't believe those things about Bush but who would claim to, these people are certainly a minority and are probably not the driving force behind these beliefs. In reality, the people surveyed probably have convinced themselves that these beliefs are correct. Whether these beliefs are based on solid facts, outright lies, or specious reasoning, they have whatever evidence they need to make this a consistent part of their internal reality. Such a belief is no more irrational than a belief that the Fed is primarily responsible for the inflation during the last century or that Republicans stuffed ballot boxes in Ohio in 2004. |
|
|
|
|
Gunrights
Posts:665
Senior User
Online Status:
Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion
|
| 05/28/2007 10:19 AM |
|
| You obviously are unaware of the Able Danger program. They identified three of the hijackers as Al Qeada agents months before 9/11. This information was covered up by both the 9/11 commission and most of the Major Media. |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/28/2007 11:50 AM |
|
| I personally do not find it productive to try to determine if Bush knew about it or was behind it or whatever. I think that we should focus on much stronger evidence that he is ignoring his Oath of Office to defend the Constitution and is instead tearing it apart. |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/28/2007 2:46 PM |
|
Gunrights,
Able Danger had two problems that kept it from stopping the terrorist attacks (aside from the fact that it only identified 3 of the hijackers, leaving another 16 unidentified who could have carried out the attacks).
First, it failed to identify any direct threat that these people posed to our country. Lacking a specific, tangible threat, there is no way that they could have moved to block the attacks aside from the incomplete action of arresting those three individuals (which was not done because the mood in the nation at the time would not tolerate that kind of Orwellian response to such a vague threat, especially after incidents like those at Waco and Ruby Ridge).
Second, the program's methods were not rigorous enough to satisfy our justice system's standards for arrest and prosecution. That they were identified does not mean that there was enough evidence to build a case against them and as such, they would have likely been arrested, held for a few days, and then released.
In short, Able Danger is another fine example of a program that, in hindsight, could have made a difference and yet was unable to overcome the mindset of the time, both within the government and among the general public. |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|