Matthews misrepresents flawed poll to suggests Dems are similar to birthers
Chris Matthews misrepresented a flawed Rasmussen poll in claiming that most Democrats believed that President Bush had or might have "gotten the inside word" that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were about to happen and that therefore "both parties" are equally at fault for promoting conspiracy theories. But the poll question -- "Did Bush know about the 9/11 attacks in advance?" -- was ambiguous and likely provoked "yes" answers from people who simply believed that Bush failed to heed intelligence information that could have led to the attacks being thwarted.
Matthews claims poll found most Dems thought Bush had or might have "gotten the inside word" about 9-11
From the August 4 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Time now for tonight's "Big Number." Remember the poll last week where a majority of Republicans said either "no" or "not sure" when asked if President Obama was born in the U.S.? Well, here's a blast from the past courtesy of Real Clear Politics. Back in 2007, two years ago, Rasmussen polled voters with a similar out-of-left-field question, asking whether they believed that then-President Bush, George W. Bush, had gotten the inside word that the World Trade towers and the Pentagon were about to be hit on September 11th, 2001. We're talking hard intel as to what was coming that day, how the hijackers were going to grab those planes and fly them into buildings.
Well, how many Democrats said either, yes, Bush knew, or that they weren't sure whether he knew about that, not sure whether the president deliberately sat back while American cities were attacked and thousands were killed? Well, think about it. Sixty-one percent, a majority. Evidence that both parties hold the darkest of suspicions about the other party and its leaders. Sixty-one percent of Democrats back in '07 said Bush either knew or might have known about 9-11 ahead of time. Tonight's scary "Big Number."
Matthews grossly distorted poll question
Contrary to Matthews' assertion, the poll simply asked, "Did Bush Know About the 9/11 Attacks in Advance?" While Matthews claimed that the 2007 Rasmussen poll asked whether respondents believed that Bush "had gotten the inside word" about the 9-11 attacks and "whether the president deliberately sat back while American cities were attacked and thousands were killed," the poll actually asked: "Did Bush Know About the 9/11 Attacks in Advance?" According to Rasmussen, "Thirty-five percent ... of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure." [Rasmussen Reports; 5/4/07]
Rasmussen poll was flawed, produced ambiguous results
Jonah Goldberg: "[P]oll is surely partly wrong," many Dems likely just think Bush "failed to connect the dots." Even conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg acknowledged at the time that the poll was ambiguous, writing: "[T]he poll is surely partly wrong. Many Democrats are probably merely saying that Bush is incompetent or that he failed to connect the dots or that they're just answering in a fit of pique." [Goldberg, Los Angeles Times; 5/15/07]
Bush did receive briefings warning of potential Al Qaeda attack
2001 presidential briefing: "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." President Bush received a briefing on August 6, 2001, titled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US," which indicated that Osama bin Laden wanted to conduct terrorist attacks against the U.S., that members of his Al Qaeda terrorist network had lived in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and that "FBI information since that time [1998] indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." [Presidential daily briefing; 8/6/01]
Bush reportedly responded to CIA warning of attack by saying, "All right. ... You've covered your ass, now." According to investigative journalist Ron Suskind, Bush responded to a CIA briefer who warned him in August 2001 that an Al Qaeda attack was likely by saying, "All right. ... You've covered your ass, now." [Suskind, The One Percent Doctrine, 2006, Pages 1-2]
Congratulation on faulty and misleading reporting, sir.
Hilarious...mmfa always falls back on "flawed polls" when they go against their liberal agenda.
They make a weak attempt to refute the poll on Pres.Bush and then immediately morph into links and data claiming he knew about the attacks before hand and right on cue the chorus chimes right in.
You darn right...many liberals believed then and still believe today that Pres.Bush had prior knowledge and failed to act...just as Mathews stated...LMELAO.
Glad you noticed that in the view of MMFA......every poll that goes against the dems on any issue is "flawed" lol. The never tire of that lame attack.
In fact, many brought up the terrorist danger in public prior to 9/11. Bush insisted that the real danger we faced was from a rogue nation launching a missile toward us.
If Al Gore was president and handled the warnings like Bush did, by totally ignoring them and even ordering an end to efforts to hunt down Bin Laden, the right wing would have dragged Gore out of the White House and hung him. Bush acted like, and was treated like, 9/11 was some great accomplishment.
Liberals don't call all unfavorable polls "flawed." The say that about some. Conservatives also call polls they don't like "flawed." Many conservatives go further than that and claim the polls are part of a liberal conspiracy.
Fact: He DID fail to act.
It's called the bi-partisan 9/11 commission report. GIve it read sometime.
"Did Bush Know About the 9/11 Attacks in Advance?" = "Involved in 9/11."
That's obviously 1 to 1 correspondence there.
Did people at all of the national intellegence and law enforcement agencies have information about the people and plans involved in the 9/11 attacks?
Yes.
Did all of those people work for Bush?
Yes.
Did the outgoing administration (their former employer) tell Bush that Osama Bin Laden and Al-Quaida was their #1 priority and that Bush should be prepared to make it his #1 priority?
Yes.
Had Al'Qaida and/or Bin Laden attempted to bomb the World Trade Center previously?
Yes.
Okay, then Bush "know about the 9/11 attacks" in advance in principle.
Is not the same as Obama (who already released his birth certificate)
Not the same by light years... Obama's birth cert -- no one died
Bush's potential knowledge and subsequent silence doing nothing to stop 9/11 .... 2996 people on that day died and untold hundreds of thousands since...
So no.... NOT THE SAME!!!!
And that is the problem.
Ask the question "did Bush have inside information on 9/11"
Some people will answer "Yes, he was involved in the planning to bring the towers down and blame it on Arabs" (my version of crazy people)
Other poeple go "well, he did have intelligence that showed that Al-Quida was determined to attack us"
Both answers are still "Yes" but; with totally different meanings.
Just another reason to question any poll you read.
And the surveillence tapes of the plane hitting the Pentagon were destroyed.
And no fighter jets were scrambled when passenger jets were turning around in the sky.
Bush may not have had inside knowledge, but when it came time for leadership and action, all he could do was sit in that classroom.
Prior knowledge on 9/11 is interesting. Do you think a PDB suggesting the very event would happen gave him prior knowledge?
Matthews is twisting the poll to mean that Bush knew specifics about 9/11, that it was going to happen that day. Harley did not say that. As Goldberg said, it's just about failing to connect the dots.
There is no way to assert that the only reasonable way to read that question is the way you're doing it. You can say that's how you read it all day long, but that doesn't mean that other people can't genuinely interpret it differently.
MMfA's point is that the question is ambiguous. So Matthews should not be adding on his own specifics to the question as if everyone reading it must have read it that exact way. Is it really your opinion that since you believe something, it's fair for it to be stated as fact?
Poll questions; "Did Bush Know About the 9/11 Attacks in Advance?"
Give me a break, only the parsiest of word parsers would try and sell that, that the above two have a glimmer of difference in them. They don't. Ridiculous.
What you need to do is to show how that alternate interpretation is not valid. Can you do that? Otherwise, it's ambiguous, and there's no argument to be made that one interpretation should be stated as the only interpretation.
He doesn't seem to be giving any room for alternate interpretations there.
So do you really think you have a chance? Seriously? You don't. Stick to topics on race, where you usually hover with equal ineptness.
And by the way, I doubt anyone is actually trying to change your mind about anything. They're simply revealing the gaping holes in your arguments.
Now, if you or pov would actually like to address the questions I asked above, then I'm all ears.
A classic set-up by Rasmussen. The question was intentionally vague for the purpose of making libs seem like fringe conspiracy theorists.
Yet another reason why not to trust Rasmussen. He loads things for conservatives and is intellectually dishonest.
Matthews is advancing a particularly weak false equivalency/right wing talking point. The scary thing is the people buying it are actually thicker than Jonah Goldberg.
Plenty of documentation that shows the Bush administration had intelligence that was discounted by Condi Rice and others!!
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html
And I love it that MMfA uses Jonah Goldberg as backup, so what?
Comical and yet sad attempt to spin, twirl, and spit and moan by Tommy.
The poll never said, "Did herr dubyah know we would be attacked on 9/11?". Fact! "The 9/11 attacks" refer to the event, not the date of the event, you inbred obtuse hick.
So, I'll ask you: Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?
Once again, a liberals show his true colors. You have no logical argument for your positions only emotion. And when things aren't going your way, you call names. Why don't you try coming up with some facts and present them in a coherent manner and then people may actually read you post with some persepective. Otherwise, I'm sure most of the libs on this site would probably wish you would just be quiet. You don't help their cause AT ALL.
That has to be the most hilarious post of the day, nobody parses like you do Brabantio. Nobody. So somebody may have prior knowledge of 9/11 but not the specific date itself? What a gem.
As for "parsing", I don't know how you would ever discuss a misleading poll question without examining the wording. Do you have a suggestion?
should be aren't answering.
Please explain.
That was Matthews' point, in case you missed it, and it's absolutely a fair and reasonable one. So sit there and think all the nonsense is exclusively from the right wing fringe, it is not.
So I suppose if you answer a question thinking it means one thing, then someone else can assert you meant something else because of their contrary interpretation. That's fair, right?
That is the whole problem. Until you can show how people can't reasonably interpret that question differently, you're sunk.
You have yet to show how the other interpretation doesn't make sense. This is what you need to do. Stating that your interpretation makes the "most" sense, therefore you can freely assume that everybody must read it that way is logically bankrupt, even if it actually did make the "most" sense. Obviously if there are other sensible interpretations, then any number of people might have answered the question with another interpretation in mind.
That piece of parsing idiocy speaks for itself.
Do you think Bush, after receiving that PDB, thought that a terrorist attack was a possibility and since the PDB was pretty detailed and mentioned suspicion in New York and Washington, would you say that he knew that attacks in NYC and DC were a possibility?
RO----"...But I do know that those that answered yes to that poll question most likely thought he knew all about it,..."
Hahahaha! Hey RO guest what I'am thinking now!
I would not have answered the question. If they asked do you think Bush knew that terrorist attacks led by OBL were a possibility, I would have said yes (due to the PDB). If they said, specifically, do you think Bush knew specifically that an attack was coming on 9/11, I would have said no.
That really does not make any sense to you? Truly? Because if you lack the knowledge to comprehend how that makes sense then clearly we are all wasting our time having a debate with you. Prior knowledge of attacks (which ended up coming to fruition) automatically means that he knew when the attacks were going to take place? Do you actually believe this?
And please, don't waste anymore of your time.
You yourself said he failed to connect the dots and that he was "possibly dismissive." Do you think it was reasonable of those who answered yes to have the same thought process you showed and answered yes to the question?
As I said, I would have asked for a more specific question or not answered that one. Its too open to interpretation.
My comment about him failing to connect the dots and dismissive was not in response to this poll question. I was saying that is what I think. If I had answered this poll question my answer would be easy - No. If the question was the one I mentioned earlier "Did Bush have advance knowledge on terrorists attacks prior to 9/11", my answer would be, Yes.
The questions are vastly different, as would be my responses.
Just my hypothesis....
On the other hand, a poll about a tangible thing, such as a birth certificate, has no grey area.
Are you serious? We still have right-wing defenders on this site claim they found WMD. And "possible terrorist attacks" seems like you're purposefully vague. He knew specifically about terrorsits hijacking planes and flying into buildings. That would be what I would assume the poll question is about.
And I do not see a parallel between Democrats who believe that Bush knew about terrorists hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings before 9/11 and Lou Dobbs, etc. going on night after night on TV, claiming that Obama has questions to answer about his birth certificate. That is Matthews premise and I just do not see it.
Really? It's not perfectly reasonable to believe the poll is asking whether or not that G-Dub knew of the threat (terrorsits hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings) "in advance" that ultimately actually occurred on 9/11? Isn't that perfectly reasonable as well? In fact, to perfectly reasonable people wouldn't it be more feasible to understand that as the question rather than G-Dub knew when and where 9/11 was going to take place and did nothing to stop it?
"Referring to prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks does not presume knowledge of the specific dates"
I'm also still curious why the this statement is baffling to you. How would you refer to the 9/11 attacks without including the date?
I don't see how that doesn't make sense, and you're not making an effort to demonstrate that.
Anyway, the question was very specific, in date and meaning, "Did Bush know about the 9/11 attacks in advance?". If you answered Yes, do you think their assumptions were based on briefings before that warned of some non-specific attack on our soil; or the assumption that makes more sense, that you believe Bush had prior knowledge that the attacks would be imminent on that date? Because this isn't some new phenomenon out of left field, there are plenty of conspirators out there who think that, most hate Bush and will believe anything if he is the villian.
To soften all that now to try and elevate Democrats as being above partisan hatred for the opposing president is ridiculous. And forgets history pretty fast.
Simply a bizarre, purposeful misunderstanding of the poll question. Where did I try to elevate Democrats as being above partisan? Your strawman arguments do not change the fact that you are purposefully trying to parse the 9/11 attacks as if they are referred to as anything else. I would be curious to know how to refer to them if not as the 9/11 attacks?
So, how do you refer to the 9/11 attacks without including the date?
Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US
Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?
something's wrong with me today.
Thanks for trying, but I pay no attention, except on occasion a little humorous pity, to Harley. Name calling is his MO as it's all he has, he can't make a point, he is a child. I am not insulted nor bothered.
There seems to be this confusion with some over what constitutes a "conspiracy theory." If a liberal puts forth an inane theory void of facts its not a conspiracy theory, but its rather proof of "institutional racism" when it comes to cable news heads in collusion with each other to keep the black man from having his own show, or it's merely common knowledge that Bush just let 9-11 happen. To me, saying Bush knowlingly allowed 3,000 Americans citizens to be burned to death is just as ridiculous as saying Obama was born in Kenya. Political persuasion doesn't make the utterance of an inane theory feasible.
I don't think Bush was that smart, or cunning. I think they just wanted to do everything the anti-Clinton way, and that included dropping the ball on terrorism. BTW, Newt Gingrich sung high praises about Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts, so no one even think about commenting about how lousy his terrorism efforts were. He still remains the only President to try, convict and imprison an entire terrorist cell.
Now, having said that, as ridiculous as it sounds to say Bush knowingly allowed 3,000 Americans to be burned to death, there is not necessarily a connection to be made that Bush would never given approval for something like that for a strategic goal because his conscience would have never allowed it. Let's not forget, he was the head of the party that has members of congress and the senate that believe that moral laws do not apply to them, because they are "chosen."
There is nothing in this poll to support your conjecture on this statement. The right-wing has every right to believe whatever they want about their political adversaries. But until Olbermann and Maddow (or someone on the left) are saying that G-Dub was behind 9/11 there is no correlation to the birther conspiracies being pushed by the right-wing commentators.
Also, there is nothing in this poll to support that belief unless you actually believe that "the 9/11 attacks in advance" can only mean that G-Dub knew when the attacks were going to take place and purposefully did nothing to stop them. That is a very partisan, childish parsing of words that seems to suggest that no one ever refers to the 9/11 attacks as the 9/11 attacks unless they are trying to tell you the date they occurred. Simply bizarre purposeful misunderstanding of a poll question.
Then again, you're one to talk (or write). You bunch us all in with "You liberals". The other day you said something about "us" despising the rich.
So are you really that different?
First, learn to type, or at least come close. You are such an idiot as it is, it is almost impossible to figure out what you mean when you ramble, scream, and cry like a baby.
I can't stand the way harley makes personal attaks either. But, I have to say the only thing more annoying are those who try to play the wounded victim only to attack him in the same way.
Also, the whole "invade Iraq to avenge his father" thing. It's been well established that members of the Bush Administration, if not Bush himself, were looking for a way before 9/11 to invade Iraq. Was it to avenge his father? Maybe. I think it was because they have all that sweet, sweet Texas Tea.
But lets do a crude poll right now. You democrats out there, how many of you believe that Bush explicity knew about the 9-1l attacks before hand?
I'm one democrat, and i say NO.
Randy
That's a better reason than WMDs, mushroom clouds, yellow cake, and any other false reasoning Dubya presented.
Their (the Birthers) next t-shirt will read You know he's colored don't you?
Randy