zogby: 1/2 nyc'ers think admin knew about 9/11 & decided not to act

[zimv20]

link (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855)


Released: August 30, 2004

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.

The poll is the first of its kind conducted in America that surveys attitudes regarding US government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy. Despite the acute legal and political implications of this accusation, nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as "very conservative" supported the claim.


Less than two in five (36%) believe that the 9/11 Commission had "answered all the important questions about what actually happened on September 11th," and two in three (66%) New Yorkers (and 56.2% overall) called for another full investigation of the "still unanswered questions" by Congress or Elliot Spitzer, New York's Attorney General. Self-identified "very liberal" New Yorkers supported a new inquiry by a margin of three to one, but so did half (53%) of "very conservative" citizens across the state. The call for a deeper probe was especially strong from Hispanics (75.6%), African-Americans (75.3%) citizens with income from $15-25K (74.3%), women (62%) and Evangelicals (59.9%).

[SPG]

What was the name of the memo?
Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US?
When did they get it?
Where was Bush?
What did he do?
Wasn't Ashcroft told that terrorism would be his number one priority?
What did he focus on? (hint: it wasn't terrorism)
After 9/11 who opposed the investigation?

Gee I wonder why New Yorkers would think there was some bad leadership prior to 9/11 and maybe something more to the story.

[mactastic]

Great, so now we have a significant percentage of the right who believes Saddam was involved in 9/11, and a significant percentage of the left who thinks this administration is covering up advance knowledge of the attacks.

And ne'er the two shall meet.

Where are these people getting their news?

[Leo Hubbard]

Great, so now we have a significant percentage of the right who believes Saddam was involved in 9/11, and a significant percentage of the left who thinks this administration is covering up advance knowledge of the attacks.

And ne'er the two shall meet.

Where are these people getting their news?
Again you are going with a falacy. Or at least that is what I think it is called.
Those one the right don't think Saddam was involved in 9/11. They think Saddam was involved in supporting terrorism. Its not the same thing.

[skunk]

Again you are going with a falacy. Or at least that is what I think it is called.
Those one the right don't think Saddam was involved in 9/11. They think Saddam was involved in supporting terrorism. Its not the same thing.
God, how many more times do we have to trawl over the same ground, Leo? If making charity payments to the families of dead suicide bombers is what you are talking about, say so, because that sure as hell isn't a justification for war.

(And why is it taking so long to get through to the server? Anyone would think something big had happened at Apple... ;) )

[toontra]

God, how many more times do we have to trawl over the same ground, Leo? If making charity payments to the families of dead suicide bombers is what you are talking about, say so, because that sure as hell isn't a justification for war.

But skunk, you have to go light on Leo here. He's every reason to be "confused". During the RNC this week we'll see Bush et al attempting, by inference, careful scripting & juxtaposition, to infer that they are indeed linked, simply by repeatedly mentioning Iraq & 9/11 in the same speeches, nay, the same sentences, in the same impassioned tone and with the sole aim of confusing people into thinking that Saddam was somehow responsible.

They've been doing it (successfully, going by the polls) for two years, and it ain't going to stop any time soon.

[mactastic]

Polls showed that many people believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11. FOX news views were the most likely to be misinformed on this point. Would you like me to find you links Leo? And stop this 'again with the falacy' thing.

[skunk]

Especially if you can't spell fallacy... :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

Especially if you can't spell fallacy... :rolleyes:

Or spell it fallaciously.

[skunk]

Indeed. ;)

[2jaded2care]

Mr. Ashcroft and I would prefer if you guys would kindly drape some cloth and cover those fallacies... it upsets our sensibilities. ;)

[mactastic]

Wouldn't that be phallacy? :p

[skunk]

Mr. Ashcroft and I would prefer if you guys would kindly drape some cloth and cover those fallacies... it upsets our sensibilities. ;)
LOL! :D Nothing wrong in standing up for your country...

[IJ Reilly]

Wouldn't that be phallacy? :p

No, I think that would be boobery.

[skunk]

Daylight boobery, in fact.

[themadchemist]

Misinformation is a shame on either end of the spectrum. Bush bungled it up, that's for sure, but he didn't consciously ignore a disaster that he knew would occur. Instead, his administration is guilty of not taking the threat seriously enough.

This is analogous to a murder trial. Apparently, half of NYCers think that the Bush Administration is guilty of first or second degree murder, while it's probably the case that it is only :rolleyes: guilty of negligent manslaughter.

Even the latter deserves a sentence of no more than one (1) term in the Presidency.

[Backtothemac]

And that poll proves that the general population are a bunch of uninformed idiots.

[diamond geezer]

And that poll proves that the general population are a bunch of uninformed idiots.

Judging by polls that show Bush is still ahead, you must be right.

[toontra]

And that poll proves that the general population are a bunch of uninformed idiots.

How about a bunch of misinformed idiots.

[Backtothemac]

How about a bunch of misinformed idiots.


No, by this definition, I would say uninformed.
un·in·formed
adj.

Not having, showing, or making use of information; not informed: uninformed voters; an uninformed decision.

[zimv20]

And that poll proves that the general population are a bunch of uninformed idiots.
regardless of what led new yorkers to such conclusions, are you enjoying the irony of the GOP picking NYC for its convention? i can't think of anywhere else in the country where this administration is so widely despised and untrusted.

[mactastic]

regardless of what led new yorkers to such conclusions, are you enjoying the irony of the GOP picking NYC for its convention? i can't think of anywhere else in the country where this administration is so widely despised and untrusted.

You obviously haven't been to Berkeley in a while... :p

Regardless, you are mostly correct. And it does play into Rove's hands to have it in a place where so much protesting by the wild-eyed liberal hordes will be sure to happen. If the GOP convention had happened in say... Houston there wouldn't be nearly as many protesters around for the simple fact that people would have to travel.

Boston isn't known as a bastion of conservatism, you know. The GOP picked NY very carefully.

[zimv20]

You obviously haven't been to Berkeley in a while... :p

'91, iirc.

your point is well taken. i imagine madison, WI, is up there as well, in terms of per capita. for sheer numbers of anti-bu****es, nyc was an interesting choice for the convention.

though the "rest of us" (i.e. non-new yorkers) can sit back and judge how "idiotic" (bttm's term) that 50% is, that is the population that had to deal with the worst of it. i think that should count for something.

[Leo Hubbard]

Who actually gets counted by polls, those idiots who actually answer phone calls from phone solicitors? I myself got rid of my home phone, cell phone was more than enough. I don't think they poll an even distribution of those on the right in getting their figures, and as such do not be surprised on election day if we discovered the polls were completly wrong.