Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Pligganease]

Poll: More Americans blame Bush for 9/11

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington has risen from almost a third to almost half over the past four years, a CNN poll released Monday found.

Asked whether they blame the Bush administration for the attacks, 45 percent said either a "great deal" or a "moderate amount," up from 32 percent in a June 2002 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

But the Clinton administration did not get off lightly either. The latest poll, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, found that 41 percent of respondents blamed his administration a "great deal" or a "moderate amount" for the attacks.

That's only slightly less than the 45 percent who blamed his administration in a poll carried out less than a week after the attacks.

Still, most Americans appear to be fatalistic, with more than half -- 57 percent -- saying they think that terrorists will "always find a way to launch attacks no matter what the U.S. government does."

The poll was carried out August 30 through September 2 by Opinion Research Corp. with 1,004 American adults questioned by telephone. The sampling error for the questions was 3 percentage points.

________________________________________________________

How can people blame Bush for these attacks when the attacks were planned and conceived before he was even elected? Most of the players in 9/11 were already in the US before he was elected!

I don't really like Bush, but this is a skewed headline with skewed results made to show what CNN wants it to show. What a joke. CNN should change its name to "Reuters."

[Tiger Beer]

That is REAL weird!

I thought then and now that Bush was a moron post 9-11. But prior to 9-11, he had the benefit of the doubt going.

Blaming him for 9-11 is a REAL big stretch however.

[seoulshock]

That's like blaming a girl for being raped because she was wearing a mini-skirt.

[bucheon bum]

[W.T.Carl]

Reuters isn't biased? Gee, what about those pictures form Lebanon?

[bucheon bum]

one dude who fooled around with photoshop=the entire reuters organization. interesting.

[freethought]

Calling Reuters biased is a joke. Fox news is Biased, Reuters doesn't even come close.

As for blaming the Bush admin, there's reason to do that. The 9/11 commission report, Richard Clarke, COndi and many other sources have reported, concluded or confirmed that they changed their Mid-east focus from what the Clinton Admin focussed on. Clinton's top priority in that sphere was bin Laden. Bush's wasn't. That's not to say that it was stoppable had they continued the focus, but it's a legit point to raise. When you add to that the boondogle that is Iraq, the failure/abandonment of Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, a sluggish economy, failure of most key domestic policies, Katrina/New Orleans etc, and I think people are more likely to have a negative view of the president and that is to be expect, and to be honest, accepted. If you have a negative view you are more likely to place blame. And, based on Iraq alone with the 'intelligence' failures, people are more likely to blame this administration. The question "if they screwed up Iraq so badly, couldn't they have screwed up bin Laden and 9/11?" isn't that much of a stretch. Watch Cheney on meet the press from this weekend. He comes across worse than ever before. He's either lying his ass off, or totally detached from reality--- most likely a combo of the two. When you watch that you're more likely to blame them for 9/11.

In short, polls are rarely rational and are almost always a productive of the times, something to keep in mind when reading them.

[happeningthang]

[some waygug-in]

"(I)f Mike (Ruppert) hadn�t struck awfully close to home with his evidence and theories, why would anyone bother penetrating his organization, smash his computers and drive him from the country?" � MK]

http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/091106_smoking_gun5.shtml

[happeningthang]

[Pligganease]

[some waygug-in]

[freethought]

attacking reuters is pathetic, and I mean that in the literal sense. The first thing that's done by people with no facts or arguments to support their position is calling the other position or those they disagree with biased.

Perhaps the lamest thing about your post is the fact that while citing bias you link to no fewer than FOUR conservative(read biased) websites. How about having a discussion on the actual topic of this post? Or rather than citing bias, which is the lamest argument you can make, why not discuss what those articles actually say and how it's 'in correct,' or how it could be improved upon.

[happeningthang]

[quote="Pligganease"]

Study: Reuters Headlines

Right wing blog

But, it isn't just Israel that gets the Reuters shaft...

Right wing blog

And this...

Right wing blog

Or this...

Right wing blog

Or here.

Right wing blog


Pligganease=hysterical moonbat.

[happeningthang]