Jonah Goldberg of the LA Times asks “Just how crazy are the Dems?”
I ask myself that every day- and Jonah Goldberg lays out the case that, if they are not actually crazy, then they at least have a “serious problem.”
In his recent opinion piece, Goldberg explains why he feels this way about the Democrats. Referring to a recent poll from Rasmusssen Reports, he notes that:
“Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know and 26% are not sure. So, 1 in 3 Democrats believe that Bush was in on it somehow, and a majority of Democrats either believe that Bush knew about the attacks in advance or can’t quite make up their minds.”
With this in mind, Goldberg asks how, since liberals think Bush is a moron, the president can at the same time be an evil genius responsible for the worst attacks on the American homeland in history.
Of course, Bush is not a moron. But rational people know he did not just allow 9/11 to happen, either. Like Goldberg said- they have a serious problem.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Let me just explain why I have so much trouble taking these right-wing pundits seriously.
Goldberg’s proof that Democrats are “out of their gourds” is that (by adding the 39% of Democrats who believe Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance together with the 26% who said they aren’t sure) “…a majority of Democrats either believe that Bush knew about the attacks in advance or can’t quite make up their minds.”
Of course using this “logic” and taking the overall total of everyone polled we find that 44% are “out of their gourds” (either believing Bush knew or not being sure) while only the remaining 55% are sane.
Furthermore, Goldberg doesn’t mention the fact that, according to the same poll, and using the same method, we find that 59% either believe or aren’t sure that the CIA knew in advance, while only 40% said “no.” That’s a lot of people “out of their gourds.”
Or maybe a lot of us are perfectly sane but simply feel or suspect that this was a major fumble in the intelligence and security areas.
In fact, if you want to read for yourself a transcript of the August 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing which was actually titled Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S., and which includes this passage, “bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and ‘bring the fighting to America,’ ” go here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
May 16th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Let me just explain why there is no possibility I could take these left-wing liberals seriously.
First, they somehow blindly ignore the fact that Saddam was one of the worst monsters in human history. They claim he and his totally evil rule should have been protected because Iraq was a “sovereign nation” while ultimately over a million died at his hands or on his orders. Yeah, “sovereign nation” trumps over a million human lives any day! (How blind and utterly uncaring!).
Secondly, they want the words “mom” and “dad” removed from public schools in California because it might offend homosexuals. This is self-explanatory for anyone with any sense so I see no need to explain it further.
Thirdly, they believe in punishing success and rewarding failure. Corporations that provide jobs, benefits, and more are evil when they make profits (remember, those profits Hillary Clinton wants punish successful businesses for when she said she wanted to “take” them?). But leeches on the welfare system get free medical care and a monthly check. Their failure is rewarded. Enough of this and there is no incentive to succeed and every incentive to fail.
Fourthly… well, I don’t have time to write something that could be even larger than the US Tax Code, so I’ll stop here. But you get the point.
But to address the specific issue, one in three Democrats believe not that Bush was warned about possible attacks but that he was willingly complacent about said attacks. I’m sorry, but I do find that crazy. I don’t believe Clinton would have done that- or any other president, Democrat or Republican.
Lastly, I’m real curious as to how this is worse than all the “Bush must die” and vastly worse language you see on liberal blogs? Saying somebody is out of the gourde and saying you want them dead are vastly different things. Or, what about the doctored photos that show Bush with a gun to his head? Any comment on those? Any comments attacking them?
I changed my mind- there is a “fourthly.” There are 3600 entries on Google that say “Bush Must Die.” There are only three for “Pelosi must die.” I did more for other Democrats (Clinton, Reid, and Gore) and all combined did not even break 300 while Bush has 3,600. Even if you put his first name in front of his last in the search – to eliminate perhaps some entries that do not refer to the President, you still get over 1,000 entries. Run the search this way - George “Bush must die” – and you get 2,100 results.
That’s just four of dozens of reasons why I can’t possibly take liberals seriously.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
What may I ask is your basis for stating “one in three Democrats believe not that Bush was warned about possible attacks but that he was willingly complacent about said attacks”?
If it were as you suggest, it would mean that nearly half of everyone polled believe Bush was “willingly complacent.”
When I went to the Rasmussen Reports homepage the poll results cited were listed for the question: “Did Bush Know About the 9/11 Attacks in Advance?” Ditto concerning the CIA.
That being so, the link I provided gave the evidence that Bush had indeed been warned, and quite specifically.