First off, let me say that I hate having to cover subjects like I am about to here - but no blog named Marginalizing Morons can justifiably ignore this.
22% Believe Bush Knew About 9/11 Attacks in Advance
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.
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.
Reiterating, I hate having to put stuff like this on my blog. One, because everyone else is talking about this poll and two, because it crosses the line into the "political arena" - a fray I try to stay above.
Clearly, the fact that 35% of Democrats believe Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand is one mother lode of a Moron indictment.
Almost on par with these demented conspiracy theorists was the reaction among some Democrats that I observed. Bill O'Reilly had a "Democratic Strategist" on last night and he asked her to respond to the results of the poll, namely the 35% number. Her Moronic response was two-fold. First, she screamed "15% of Republicans believe it too!" Bill O'Reilly demanded a more legitimate answer so she exclaimed, "President Bush has created a lot of mistrust in voters..."
Okay, he may have created "mistrust" among the electorate, but he didn't start confiscating brain cells. Can you say external locus of control?
If I was a Democrat I would just say, "Sure we have a lot of dummies in our party, but we also have a lot of smart people too" or "Well, 75% of Americans can't find their own country on a map..."
I certainly wouldn't have gotten as defensive as the guest on O'Reilly. Doing so essentially corroborates the point they are trying to deflect. This illustrates why arguing has gotten real boring for me. I can't hardly get a good argument from anyone. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred I know better counter-arguments against my views then the Moron or genius trying to altercate with me.
I emailed the story to a couple of acquaintances who I knew would get similarly "defensive". One responded with the Republican percentage just like the clown on O'Reilly. While the other tried to draw a Moronic equivalence with those who "reject evolution" - which started a whole other sidebar discussion. But the evolution analogy is fatuous at best. Evolution is a theory on human development. Many evolution deniers don't "reject evolution", they consider it a theory and not a fact. Also, how can anyone compare doubt of what happened incrementally over a period of millions of years to doubt of what happened six years ago in a time of prevalent video cameras, human witnesses, etc.? Evolutionists and 9/11 conspiracists have one thing in common in that both groups' evidence has yet to "fossilize".
Identity politics is out of control in 2007. I voted for President Bush in the last election - so did Don King but I don't feel any obligation to vouch for his intelligence.
Lord Halifax said that ignorance,
"maketh most men go into a party, and shame keepeth them from getting out of it."
Indeed.
One more excerpt from that poll,
White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.
Let's see....Ethnic minorities and college kids are most likely to believe in the 9/11 conspiracy tripe.
Does that mean that American socialists are failing in their efforts to elevate and educate?
Or does it mean that they have been successful in creating a docile horde of bitter voters?
3 comments:
Without getting into the results of that poll or accepting or denying various conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, would you say that the facts of the day's events are 100% conclusive, as "we" the public have received them?
In other words, do you feel confident that you could explain how and why everything took place on September 11th, 2001 to the average curious stranger?
Absolutely.
Was the 9/11 report a farce, yes. But I still am extremely confident that I know what happened.
It was a brilliant, unconventional attack, and impossible to even imagine at the time, no less prevent.
I agree that the 9/11 report was a farce, as well.
Honestly, I can't say I can explain how and why everything that took place on September 11th took place to someone who knew nothing of it. Does that mean I buy into the conspiracy theory? No. But at the same time, I don't really see why I shouldn't be skeptical about the government's story-- if I don't believe the government when it tells me it's not the cause of inflation, why should I believe its version of events concerning a major terrorist attack?
The lesson of 9/11, if there was one to be had, was that the government failed us big time and was, at the very least, grossly negligent in its one major role of protecting us... at most, it was complicit in the acts. I don't know if I'm ready to go that far yet, but I am very unsatisfied with the multiple failures and absolutely unbelievable series of events of that day, and many of the official explanations for them.
Maybe if I didn't need a degree in structural engineering or if I was an expert on national defense systems I'd be more comfortable with things as they were, but in my blanket of ignorance I rest a bit uneasy right now.
Post a Comment