May 05, 2007

Democrats -- far gone?

A new Rasmussen poll shows -- unbelievably -- that 35% of Democrats think President Bush knew ahead of time about the 9/11 attacks, while 26% "aren't sure."

That's 61% total. 61% of Democrats believe Bush either knew in advance about 9/11, or aren't sure if he knew in advance.

Let that sink in, people.

UPDATE: Here's our friend Perry attempting to find proof that Bush knew in advance of 9/11:

Posted by Hube at May 5, 2007 11:35 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

That's because many of the Dems probably remember the August 6, 2001 PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing), delivered to a relaxed President Bush in Crawford, TX, remember? "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US"

You apparently have forgotten, Hube, or you are in denial!

Posted by: Perry Hood at May 5, 2007 06:55 PM

Grow up, Perry. That PDB was a generalized warning about a possible attack, not a specific, detailed assessment of an actual upcoming attack.

I guess we can count you among the moonabatty 35%, then right?

Time for you to break out that lithium, my friend.

Posted by: Hube at May 5, 2007 07:11 PM

And what was Bush's response to it, Hube? A jeep ride and cleaning up some sagebrush. Then, bam, bam, bam!!!

Posted by: Perry Hood at May 6, 2007 08:37 AM

"Excellent" retort, moonbat. See the update.

Posted by: Hube at May 6, 2007 09:20 AM

Yeah Perry. When the PDB said that Bin Laden was "determined to attack" the US and the FBI knew that Suadi Nationals were taking flying lesson, but only interested in learning how to fly (not take off or land) it was a generalized warning.

Nothing to worry about. Go on about your business.

Posted by: jason at May 6, 2007 12:45 PM

How'd that photo get out, dammit! :)

Right, Jason. What Bush should have done was to warn the country of a possible imminent attack. He did not, because he was on vacation after all!

Posted by: Perry Hood at May 6, 2007 06:38 PM

Do you pathetic nitwits REALLY want to compare who didn't do what, when, when it comes to bin Laden and terrorism?? You know you do not b/c it makes the former Democrat administration look pathetic. Much more pathetic than GW, which is REALLY pathetic.

Thanks ever so much for proving my point about how far-gone you cretins are. Keep that in mind the next time you write a post about non-evolution-believing GOPers, Jase.

Posted by: Hube at May 7, 2007 03:58 PM

Are you now actually attempting to defend the ineffective response that Bush & Co. made to the 9/11 attack, Hube? Clinton made no such a sequence of blunders for what, over four years now for Bush with no end yet in sight? And Bush has yet to capture Usama, as he assured us he would. Your standards and expectations are mighty low, Hube!

Posted by: Perry Hood at May 7, 2007 11:17 PM

Perry: Are you NOW conflating Iraq with 9/11?

Are you seriously arguing that Clinton -- WHEN HE HAD A CHANCE TO EITHER NAB OR KILL BIN LADEN AND REFUSED -- made "no such blunders"??

Dude, as I said before: Break out the lithium. You're a nut.

Posted by: Hube at May 8, 2007 07:26 AM

Yeah, given what he knew at the time, he could have offered a generalized warning that some guy most Americans had never heard of was out to attack teh US sometime, somewhere, possibly using hijacked planes. That would have set off a great panic, wouldn't it -- and doen zip to assure safety.

I suppose, of course, he could have ordered the round-up of Saudi and other Arab men, especially those in flight school, until they could be cleared. maybe even interned all Muslims, or banned them from flying.

And no doubt the ACLU would have been all over that approach, and many in Congress would have been calling for his impeachment.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at May 8, 2007 07:40 PM