Al Queada eating children?

Perhaps -- but if anything I'm sure the numbers are even higher now given all the anti-war rhetoric we've been barraged with the past two years. But that is irrelevant -- the relevant point was that I was able to produce a poll which showed a significant number of Democrats believe Bush could have stopped 9/11 if he really wanted to or if he wasn't so focused on getting Saddam Hussein and other bogeyman.

This whole thing got started because Pastor challenged Tony to produce numbers or a poll and I did -- four different ones that if you take all the data and add it up overwhelmingly supports the point in question -- and Pastor can't handle it.

 

"A significant portion of the left now believes Bush either knew about 9/11 or even had something to do with it."

When poll numbers are brought in to prove this, let me know. Until then, you will continue to find your poop flinging doesn't stick to the wall.

(And even if any of those polls had anything to do with knowing events before hand, NONE of them show that anyone believes Bush was behind it, but Zag here will claim otherwise.)

 

I'm pretty sure I could produce a poll that finds most Democrats think FEMA is an outstanding agency doing an outstanding job - as long as I could find a poll taken before Katrina hit. Numbers are miserable, slutty things. Now back to our regularly scheduled thread.

"Mmmmmmm, children..."

 

That's right, I understand, limp away and lick your wounds while throwing some feeble walk-off line to try and save some face among your cheerleaders, who have all gone away by the way. In the meantime, feast on a couple more.....

According to a July poll conducted by Scripps News Service, one-third of Americans think the government either carried out the 9/11 attacks or intentionally allowed them to happen in order to provide a pretext for war in the Middle East.

Let's see -- 1/3rd of Americans, most polling data suggests Republicans almost 9-to-1 don't believe the Bush administration had anything to do with 9/11, well you do them math on what percentage of Democrats believe this giberrish.

And finally....

According to a national telephone survey of 1,000 adults, conducted by Rasmussen Reports from April 30 to May 1, 2007, 35 percent of Democrats believe Bush knew, 39 percent believe he didn't and 26 percent say they aren't sure.


Hmmm, 61 percent of Democrats either believe or are not sure whether or not Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks while only 39 percent have ruled it out.

Are those two on point enough?

 

Except for the fact that given the trend in this country these numbers are very likely to be even stronger in their support of Tony's original point about Democrats.

 

I'm confused. Zag posted recently that he wasn't conservative.

 

I see nothing provided to back up OT's claim that a significant portion of "the left" (whatever that is, given that the slide from "left" to "right" is actually an ideological circle) believes that Hedge either knew about 9/11 beforehand or had something to do with it.

I have no choice but to conclude that OT was indulging in conjecture, hyperbole, bluster or bullshit and now can't find any actual statistics to back up a claim made in the red mist.

 

What point? That members of the opposition party would increasingly think an inept president demonstrably incompetent for not only not preventing the attack that defines all of Western politics and culture for the 21st century, but for actually making things worse? That's not a point, Zag, that's a given.

 

Mac, you forgot Hedge's other problem: members of his own party increasingly think he's an inept president demonstrably incompetent for not only not preventing the attack that defines all of Western politics and culture for the 21st century, but for actually making things worse.

 

I just arrived, and I'm quickly leaving, having read a little of the first and fourth pages. My comment: the title of this thread is inaccurate and diverting. What Yon wrote describes intimidation, and yes it's not first hand and not from a source that is necessarily reliable. He has done a better job of identifying his source than many AP articles from Iraq do, which gives all of us a better chance at evaluating its worth, which is questionable at best.

He should have left it out.

 

You caught the relevant highlights, believe me.

 

Wow, now Pastor has resorted to running and finding his cheerleaders, who are as equally as clueless as he is, to help him save face.

I've posted the data and most reasonable and credible (i.e. non-partisan) people would concur that I've made a very strong case. Pastor has yet to post one iota of evidence to the contrary, well other than a whole lot of hot air intended to muddy the waters more.