WorldNetDaily reported today on a new Rasmussen poll on beliefs about 9/11.
Five-and-a-half years after al-Qaida terrorists hijacked four U.S. airliners, crashing them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, Democrats find themselves evenly divided as to whether President George Bush knew in advance the attacks were coming.
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.
While 61 percent of Democrats either believed or weren't sure 9/11 occurred with the administration's foreknowledge, Republicans rejected the theory of passive complicity by a 7-to-1 margin. For those with no major party affiliation, the idea Bush knew was held by only 18 percent. Fifty-seven percent rejected it.
Overall, 22 percent of voters believe the president knew in advance.
Over and over we see evidence of the Great Divide in our country between Democrats and Republicans, between liberals and conservatives. It's not just a simple disagreement over policy or priorities. It has become visceral.
Over a third of Democrats believe in their gut that President Bush not only knew about the attacks on 9/11 ahead of time but he allowed them to happen. And more than half of the remaining Democrats are willing to at least entertain the idea.
To believe evil intent on the part of the President is incomprehensible to me. Even during the Clinton administration, when he was at his most disgusting, I never believed he was capable of wanton destruction of American lives. I believed that many of his policies would lead to misery for some people, but not that their misery was his plan.
It's hard to know what made things change. Was it like this during the Reagan era? I wasn't paying a lot of attention then. Or, is this the result of Democrat resentment over having lost the White House after eight years of being in charge?
I couldn't say. I just know it doesn't bode well for us as a nation if things stay the way they are.
3 comments:
I always pegged you as a Vince Foster/Fort Marcy Park/Clinton Body Count conspiracy theorist. No? I might be getting you confused with NewsMaxx and/or World Net Daily, or Limbaugh, or...
PAW,
You must disabuse yourself of such unworthy peggings at once!
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, although I have pointed out to friends that many in the Clinton circles have ended up dead or in prison. "Just the facts, ma'am." But I'd believe conspiracies on the part of Hillary before I'd believe them from Bill. He's just too lazy and self-absorbed to plan all that.
I do read WorldNetDaily, because I like their layout: Headlines with links and no pictures in the way. But I skip all the conspiracy articles. They're a bit too far to the right for my taste.
And Limbaugh? No. I prefer Hugh Hewitt, especially when he has his regular guests, like Mark Steyn, Professor David Allen White, and Emmett of the Unblinking Eye.
If you're looking for right-wing moonbattery, you must chercher elsewhere.
My intent was to demonstrate that the "people are believing crazy things" cat has been out of the bag for a while, and to poke at you just a bit, that's all.
I have been curious about your WND usage. Glad to hear you have a foot on the shore.
Post a Comment