Bush knew about 9-11 in advance?

[JohnnyLingo]

Probably old news, but I'm fascinated with the results of a poll that shows 35% of Democrats believe President Bush knew about 9-11 before it happened.

link

And even better, 26% are unsure if Bush knew or not.

That means 61% of Democrats have at least a nagging doubt that Bush may have known about the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history and did nothing about it.

Incredible.

Of course, in the interest of fairness, I will point out that 18% of Republicans believe the same thing. That's rather disheartening.

[Archaea]

There is also a significant number of persons who don't even know that Dick Cheney is Vice President, so why would inane beliefs surprise anybody.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by Archaea

There is also a significant number of persons who don't even know that Dick Cheney is Vice President, so why would inane beliefs surprise anybody.

Lack of knowledge is one thing.

Actively believing in something so erroneous is another, IMO.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Lack of knowledge is one thing.

Actively believing in something so erroneous is another, IMO.

But isn't the first step to proper belief a proper foundation of knowledge? If all the citizens have to witness are the zany things promulgated by the dominant media, it creates an aura that Bush is one horrible preplanning meglimaniac. Bush is a bumbler to be certain, and miscalculated, but no credible evidence exists to support a pre-attack awareness of the impending actions. However, when BYU's own Dr. Jones hypothesizes government conspiracy and you see him being heralded a champion of truth, it shows we have a lot of misinformed and whacko persons in our society.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Probably old news, but I'm fascinated with the results of a poll that shows 35% of Democrats believe President Bush knew about 9-11 before it happened.

I'm curious how they defined "knew about 9-11." If it was like other government reports I've read (and written) it was probably so vague and nonspecific, with so many qualifiers, 'probably's' and 'perhaps'es that the agency could cover its ass, while providing no specific data.

[DrumNFeather]

Originally Posted by Solon

I'm curious how they defined "knew about 9-11." If it was like other government reports I've read (and written) it was probably so vague and nonspecific, with so many qualifiers, 'probably's' and 'perhaps'es that the agency could cover its ass, while providing no specific data.

I agree.

Plus, how many reports came out just after 9-11 that the Pentegon was warned...that someone called and said this is going to happen.

They get calls like that daily.

[All-American]

If I had been told on September 10, 2001, that an Islamic terrorist group was planning to attack the World Trade Center, I would have responded by saying, "No crap, Sherlock." They had done so before, after all.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by All-American

If I had been told on September 10, 2001, that an Islamic terrorist group was planning to attack the World Trade Center, I would have responded by saying, "No crap, Sherlock." They had done so before, after all.

The idea of CYA is so ingrained in our intelligence community that there are more lawyers than undercover operatives working for CIA, and the NSA routinely erases SIG-INT (taped phone conversations) that it didn't have time to decipher/translate because, if an attack took place, heads would roll if the NSA could have known about it but hadn't chosen the right tapes to listen to (an impossible task).

May you all sleep well tonight.

On a brighter note, it's amazing to me that there hasn't been a major terrorist attack on US soil in nearly 6 years, although we know they're trying. Props to those who are doing so much despite the ways their hands are tied by red tape, government ineptitude, poor organization, arcane fiefdoms, and political machinations. The Intel. community is hardly blameless in our current predicaments, but those who take the most heat are probably not those most responsible.

[MikeWaters]

Actually, the idea has some merit. Not because I am familiar with the evidence of this case, but because it has happened in the past. WWII and Pearl Harbor. Gulf of Tonkin. In both cases, the public was not informed to the extent of what the President actually knew. And he knew more than he said.

So anyone who would be shocked that Bush knew more than he lets on, isn't a student of history.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Solon

On a brighter note, it's amazing to me that there hasn't been a major terrorist attack on US soil in nearly 6 years, although we know they're trying. Props to those who are doing so much despite the ways their hands are tied by red tape, government ineptitude, poor organization, arcane fiefdoms, and political machinations. The Intel. community is hardly blameless in our current predicaments, but those who take the most heat are probably not those most responsible.

How do we know that they are trying?

Millions of Mexicans somewhat cross our border, but dedicated jihadists can't?

A Korean student can paralyze a nation with his evil, but jihadists can't?

Iraq should tell us that the Bush admin is incompetent. It's probably not wise to give the govt. credit for stopping all attacks for occurring.

Could it actually be the case, that they want us to get the freak out of the Middle East? Out of Saudi Arabia (the reason Al Qaeda started in the first place), out of Iraq, etc.?

Maybe there aren't as many people that want to kill us as we think. Just maybe.