Gallup: BUSH Blamed MORE Than Clinton for Failure To Capture Bin Laden!!!

[Beetwasher]

Views are predictably partisan; independents mostly blame Bush

PRINCETON, NJ -- The recent firestorm over former President Bill Clinton's culpability for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was fueled on Tuesday when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice contrasted President Bush's efforts to pursue al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden with Clinton's efforts. Clinton has strongly denied various suggestions that his administration missed key opportunities to kill bin Laden and left the Bush administration without a comprehensive anti-terrorism strategy. However, Bush -- whom Clinton says did nothing about al-Qaeda for the first eight months of his presidency -- has the bigger image problem with Americans on the issue.

According to a recent Gallup Panel survey, the American public puts the primary blame on Bush rather than Clinton for the fact that bin Laden has not been captured. A majority of Americans say Bush is more to blame (53%), compared with 36% blaming Clinton.

--snip--

:rofl:

53% to 36%. Those numbers are nothing to sneeze at! And that's even WITH the mighty GOP Media wurlitzer going at full throttle to blame Clinton (Mission Accomplished ABC:rofl:)! And, even on top of THAT, THIS RESULT IS IN A GALLUP POLL, which as we all know always runs as much in Chimpy's favor as possible (when compared to most other polls).

:rofl:

[slackmaster]

1. Poll is silly, pointless, useless, and irrelevant

The bottom line is:

Both the Clinton and W administrations failed to stop bin Laden.

Neither administration prevented 9/11 from happening.

[Beetwasher]

2. Oh Bullshit

What a load of crap. How is this poll silly or irrelevant, from a political standpoint? This poll is very revealing and can and should be seized upon and used as a club. It's confirmation and support for the strategy of Dems attacking Bush on this issue, as they've started doing. It's very relevant and incredibly useful. On what planet is this NOT useful? These numbers aren't even CLOSE.

[AX10]

3. Exactly!

[Beetwasher]

6. And Obviously The Repubs Are Scared SHITLESS About This

Which is WHY they funded and ran w/ "Pto9/11" to begin with. Obviously THEY think it's a VERY relevant issue, so much so that they feel it's necessary to mount a massive propoganda campaign about it. It's AWESOME that their propoganda campaign is BACKFIRING on this issue.

[slackmaster]

36. Only a few of them are worried about it

Here's an example of one who isn't even slightly concerned:

[Beetwasher]

57. Oh? Really? Then Why Is He Running As FAR Away From Bush As Possible?

Why don't you look at ALL the governor races. How are the rest of the Repubs doing? :rofl:

Is Arnie appearing w/ Chimpy at campaign events? What was that he said about appearing w/ Chimpy during his campaign? Hmm? Care to find that quote? :rofl:

Why the propoganda to blame the whole thing on Clinton if "only a few" of them are worried about it? Or will you deny the propoganda campaign too? :eyes:

[civildisoBDence]

49. Right on, beetwasher. The election is largely a referendum on Iraq

Independents blame Bush over Clinton by a significant margin; Republicans are less likely to blame Clinton than Democrats are to blame Bush.

This is great news, and Clinton knew the breakdown before he went on FoxNews.

He outfoxed 'em.

Newsprism

[Lone_Star_Dem]

7. Well said!

What matters right now is getting the twits out of office and then we can focus on repairing damage. Until then NOTHING can be done by our party.

I say beat them upside their heads with this until they regret ever invoking 9/11 and bringing bin Laden back to the front pages.

[Imagevision]

63. And Bush to state again on tv. (Fri.10:00am) "we had to get rid of Saddam"

Yeah, Bush knows he'll be losing power come 11/7/06 - question is, would Cheney not cop-out to health issues rather then stick around for 2 more years as a lame-duck VP?

[slackmaster]

26. I feel the same way about most polls, Beetwasher - ALL please read!

My response on nearly all poll-related discussions on DU has been very consistent.

Here is some recommended reading for everyone who disagrees with me on the subject:

2. The Poll Trap

Many progressives slavishly follow polls. The job of leaders is to lead, not follow. Besides, contrary to popular belief, polls in themselves do not present accurate empirical evidence. Polls are only as accurate as the framing of their questions, which is often inadequate. Real leaders don't use polls to find out what positions to take; they lead people to new positions.

The document the above is quoted from should be required reading IMO:

12 Traps That Keep Progressives From Winning

ETA I blame 9/11 on the men who did it. And it's amazing how my point sailed right over so many peoples' heads.

[oasis]

29. Your point was clear. Clinton and Bush bear equal blame. Saxby Chambliss

said essentially the same thing. I don't agree with him either.

[slackmaster]

32. No, your comment proves that you missed it completely

Sorry. I did NOT say they were equally at fault. I said that neither one of them succeeded in preventing the attacks. Arguing about who failed worse doesn't put a good light on anyone.

I generally steer clear of blaming law enforcement people for the acts of criminals.

[Beetwasher]

30. Polls Serve A Purpose

And can be used in various different ways. They are not all useless. No one is saying that progressive should follow polls exclusively or use polls to MAKE policy or decisions, but a poll like this CAN be used to advantage if used properly and they can be used as one piece of data in formulating strategy and tactics.

If your point sailed over people's heads, it's only because you made it poorly to begin with.

Given the propoganda blitz we've been subjected to, this poll is indeed good news and should be trumpeted and should give some measure of support to the strategy of taking Bushco. head-on regarding this issue. It's an important issue as it cuts right to the heart of the abject incompetence of the this administration and their failure to take ANY responsibility for their failures that WERE indeed responsible for at least allowing 9/11 to happen. It's a tactic they use again and again and again. Fuck up majorly, take no responsibility, hold no one accountable and pass the buck onto Clinton. This poll shows that ain't working and it's good news and it's useful information and can be used effectively by the Dems.

[slackmaster]

31. Please consider the real purpose of polls

To generate content for the media, so they can get peoples' attention and give more exposure to paid advertisers.

Given the propoganda blitz we've been subjected to, this poll is indeed good news and should be trumpeted and should give some measure of support to the strategy of taking Bushco. head-on regarding this issue.

You're making exactly the same mistake that BushCo is making. Arguing about who was MORE at fault for 9/11 won't change anyone's mind. What we really need is a leader to show us the way OUT of our current mess.

[Beetwasher]

33. Nope, I'm Not Making Any Mistake Since I'm Not A Decision Maker

Or anyone who as any relevant in the political establishment.

People can walk and chew gum at the same time. The notion of Chimpy as the protector needs to be demolished and a poll like this helps to do that, though it's only one piece of data that should fit into an overall comprehensive strategy. You can find a way out if you don't know the truth about how you got in.

Different polls have different purposes, and like any tool they can be used effectively, or abused. This poll is far from meaningless and uselss. It tells a story, it provides data. What you DO w/ that story, w/ that data, is another matter.

[slackmaster]

34. George W. Bush is not a candidate for office in the 2006 election

Running against Bush is pointless unless one's opponent is very close to Bush.

[Beetwasher]

37. WRONG! He RIGHTFULLY IS THE MAIN FOCUS OF THIS ELECTION

Yeesh. You don't get it do you? This election has become nationalized and has become a referendum on Bush and the rubberstamp Republicans. That's why the Dems are doing so well. Haven't you been paying attention? This election HAS become about holding the admin. accountable, and it seems to be working.

"Running against Bush is pointless unless one's opponent is very close to Bush."

:rofl:

Tell it to Joe Lieberman.

[slackmaster]

40. Hoo boy, my Cassandra complex is in high gear today

Please see reply #26, and thanks for the chuckle. Let's be sure to chat again after the election.

[Beetwasher]

42. Heh

Gee, I wouldn't want to give you a reason to root for the wrong team. :eyes:

[slackmaster]

43. Nice to see how dissenting points of view are "tolerated" on DU

My agenda is to discourage people from making what I see as a strategic blunder.

Running against George W. Bush may work for a few candidates at the national level, but IMO it's risky and very likely a mistake for most contests. The winds of popularity are fickle. All it takes is one October surprise to move the numbers 10 or 20 points, then all the effort put into that strategy, as opposed to running on one's own merits, go down the tubes.

[Beetwasher]

44. Good Thing No One's Listening To You

Since nationalizing the election seems to be working. People can walk and chew gum at the same time and they SHOULD run against Bush AND the Rubberstamp Repubs. Additionally, they should promote the Dem platform and agenda. No one is saying ONLY run against Bush, but it's a great part of an overall strategy. Taking the fight to Bush and the Repubs on Nat'l Security IS WORKING. THAT is what the Dems are doing and part of that is DEMOLISHING Bush's image as "protector".

Who's saying running against Bush should be the ONLY tactic used? No one. It's a strawman you created.

Dissent all you want, I could care less, but I will call you on your bullshit. Finally the Dems find a backbone and are taking it to Bush and it's working and you think they should cut it out? :eyes: Whatever. That's bullshit.

[slackmaster]

47. Phil Angelides is certainly not listening to me

All you poll lovers will note that he's trailing the Governator by 17 points or so.

Here's the full text from the first Angelides for Governor link that shows up on Google:

Join the fight to defeat Arnold!

Governor Schwarzenegger promised he was a different kind of Republican. But from the start, Schwarzenegger has governed from the right-wing playbook of George Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.

California needs new leadership!

Join Phil Angelides today to take back California!

http://action.angelides.com/campaign/defeatarnold?source=200506_sig_googleadw

And if you saw the TV ads Angelides is running in California you'd have to conclude he isn't running against Scwarzenegger; he's running against George W. Bush.

People rarely listen to me, but being a Cassandra complex victim I'm used to it.

Who's saying running against Bush should be the ONLY tactic used? No one. It's a strawman you created.

I never said that running against Bush is, isn't, or should be the only tactic anyone is using. YOUR statement is a strawman. MY point is that basing one's behavior, particularly a campaign strategy, on polls is folly.

But you will never see it, and after the election when I proved correct you won't remember.

[Beetwasher]

51. LOL!

"MY point is that basing one's behavior, particularly a campaign strategy, on polls is folly."

Dude, WTF are you talking about? Who said that? No one. It's a strawman that YOU made up. You must be delerious w/ your man love for Arnie, who, BTW, is running as a progressive, and running as far away from Bush as possible to get relected. :rofl:

Angelides has been completely absent from the campaign, while Arnold is running to the left and away from Bush. Or will you deny that? :eyes:

Funny how you latch onto that one race, when pretty much every other race, and there's lot's of them, tell a completely different story about the tactic of attacking or, in the case of Repubs, running way (which even your boyfriend Arnie is doing), from Bushco.

Now, I know you backpedalled and tried to claim you meant something different, but your original post was bullshit w/ no such qualifications, and here it is in it's entirety for your reading pleasure:

"Poll is silly, pointless, useless, and irrelevant
The bottom line is:

Both the Clinton and W administrations failed to stop bin Laden.

Neither administration prevented 9/11 from happening."

That's it. No qualifications that you added later. Your post was bullshit. The poll is far from meaningless. And even if I accept your backpedalled qualifications, my OP never said we should rely (or base strategy) on this poll (or polls in general) for anything (I have said we could USE it, not rely on it, as part of a comprehensive strategy), nor did anyone. So even your later, backpedalled qualifications ("MY point is that basing one's behavior, particularly a campaign strategy, on polls is folly.")are irrelevant, bullshit strawmen.

"The surest way to make a monkey of a man is to quote him. - Robert Benchley"

Indeed.

[freebrew]

61. How can Clinton be at any fault?

It was *(bu$h) that got the memo that Bin Laden was going to strike the US.
He also was warned by many other country's intelligence offices that was the case.

It was * that ignored the warnings. Clinton had long been out of office.

I also remember the discussions about *'s administration REFUSING Clinton's
help with the terrorism problem. All of that should be archived somewhere in the memory hole..

So, how by any stretch of anyone's imagination is Clinton at fault whatsoever?

Just asking...

[oasis]

4. Bush, Condi and a host of incompetents were in charge when 9/11 happened.

That's the bottom line.

[magellan]

5. One did far less to prevent it

And it wasn't Clinton's administration.

[magnolia]

8. Hey...Clinton didn't start the blame game!!

Clinton never once accused Bush of not doing enough. If they hadn't put on that "Path to 9/11" propaganda, we wouldn't be talking about this and there would be no poll. They brought it. Now we are suppose to just be quiet about it because it's irrelevant? They made it relevant when they brought it up.

[Lost4words]

10. But ask yourself who had the most to gain from 9/11

unbridled power, unchecked funneling of massive funds to the cause (campaign contributers).

If it walks like a duck, flys like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, the odds are high, ITs A DUCK!

To me personally, the gop is a group of criminals traitors and thugs. their only concern is the cash in their pockets taken from the poor and working class of our nation.

8643

[Raffi Ella]

12. It wasn't pointless

To the GOP!To the rightwing NUTjobs who put together the lie filled propaganda Hit Job 'The Path to 9/11'!
Obviously it is VERY important to those lying sacks of shit that swiftboated Kerry and are now trying to do the same to Clinton/Democratic Party right before extraordinarily important elections!
Pointless???Nah,I don't think so.It's time to fight these motherfuckers and get the truth out there.

Like Olbermann said "Free pass for bush is OVER."

[CJCRANE]

13. Clinton was trying to get bin Laden

then handed the baton over to Bush who did nothing for 8 months. Only after 3,000 people died did Bush wake up (temporarily). Even then he used the Northern Alliance and left bin Laden's stronghold til last, allowing him to slip over the border into "sovereign" Pakistan.

[BurtWorm]

15. In the context of Election 2006, the question is very relevant.

The Bushists have spent the fall trying to jam it into Americans' heads that a Democrat caused the mess we're in. If they were to succeed, it would make it that much more difficult to return Dems to power. The point is, it looks like they haven't succeeded.

[Kahuna]

16. How was Clinton supposed to stop 9/11 SINCE HE WASN'T IN OFFICE???

Did Clinton get the intel about the impending attack on the USA? No, he didn't! So how does he share any blame at all?

[lyonn]

17. You apparently didn't factor in the 9-11 issue

Clinton was facing the attacks on the embassies in Africa and the Cole. Clinton already had those that bombed the trade towers in "93" in jail with valuable intel from those arrested and charged. There is nothing equal about who is more at fault for getting or even attempting to get Osama. When did bush mention Osam prior to 9-11.

Bush ignored those issues when it came to terrorism. Actually bush had his mind set on ousting Saddam which had nothing to do with our problems with terrorism. 9-11 gave bush reason "finally" to stomp into Iraq. Afghanistan was just a token invasion, nothing to take seriously, ya, right.

As Clarke stated, if bush had alerted the agencies to the heightened "chatter", that caused some in the agency to claim that "hair was on fire", when it came to the terrorist threat then there was a possibility that agencies might have discovered more info from each other, like the 2 guys in San Diego, those Arabs taking flying lessons without real interest in landing and taking off!! Alerted the airports, etc.

[pnwmom]

21. At the very least, we'd have been checking passengers against

the terrorist watch list, and not letting them board. That would have affected several of the 19.

[pnwmom]

19. No, the bottom line is that either Clinton or Gore (if allowed to take

office) would very likely have prevented, or at least mitigated, the 9/11 attacks. They certainly would have heeded the repeated CIA warnings and improved airport security. One of the airport screeners in Boston was quite distraught because he had let one of the terrorists through, despite his initial misgivings (he actually did stop him, but then let him go on). If there had been a general alert at the time, he would have subjected him to a thorough search, and at least that flight would have been prevented.

When the 2000 attack on LA was prevented at the Canadian border, it was during a time period when the Clinton administration had the border patrol on high alert -- and the border agent acted accordingly.

And, as Clinton said, at least he was TRYING. Bush didn't lift a finger until after 9/11.

[lyonn]

27. Exactly, Clinton put country on high alert during the millennium

causing the stop at the Canadian border of a terrorist.

[rock]

20. All adminsitrations that were not in power on 911

please step to the left of this line. All those that were ...

Well, you get my point.

[Raffi Ella]

22. !

:applause:


We need to Drive that point home!With Details!

[oasis]

28. self delete.

[EOTE]

39. * didn't prevent 9/11 from happening.

Clinton couldn't prevent 9/11 from happening, because he wasn't in office. If he were, 9/11 wouldn't have occured. Clinton stopped many terror attacks, including the Millenium Bombing plot in 2000. He did this all without removing the civil liberties that bush did. There's absolutely no comparison.

[slackmaster]

41. "If he were, 9/11 wouldn't have occured."

That has to be the most baseless comment yet.

[frylock]

45. you should read up on 911 a little more..

I recommend Dick Clarke's 'Against all Enemies' followed by Nafeez Ahmad's 'The War on Freedom'.

[EOTE]

46. Well, yes 9/11 would have occured.

It would have been a date just like any other. The difference being that 3,000 citizens wouldn't have been murdered.

[madmusic]

56. Then why has Rove, et al...

Spent so much time and $ trying to influence the polls?

And it backfired! :toast:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[VeggieTart]

64. Clinton failed, but at least he fucking tried

And do you think President Gore would have ignored the PDB that said Osama bin Forgotten was determined to attack? Shit, he wouldn't have been on vacay in the first place.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

9. Considering the political and budget resources each WH had, these

results make a lot of sense.

How much support from Republicans did Clinton have in his quest to kill bin Laden, BEFORE OBL had killed thousands of Americans on 9-11? Republicans derided the almost-successful 1998 cruise missile attack as "Wag the Dog".

How much support from Democrats did Dubya have for five years after 9-11-01?

And what would Bill Clinton have done with hundreds of billions of dollars Dubya and company have spent in the name of "Homeland Security" since 9-11? Would OBL still be running free, and would people be speculating that he may have died of old age following 5 years of WH flip-flops on the need to bring him to justice?

[PinkyisBlue]

50. And would Clinton have said, one year after 9/11, that he

"doesn't spend much time thinking about" and is "really not that concerned" about Osama bin Laden?

[swwallace81]

60. These are the same 36%

who would jump off a cliff if * said they'd live to tell about it. Face the facts, 36% will vote republican no matter what. I've come to the conclusion that people will believe what they want to believe, and that includes us!

[ProgressiveEconomist]

62. IMO, answering "Clinton" to the question Gallup asked is completely

irrational. How could anyone out of power for more than 5 years be more responsible for something a current national leader has NOT done in the past five years?

I suspect that the wording of the question may have been ambiguous to that third who answered "Clinton". Those who take Ann Coulter and Fox News as "fair and balanced" have been indoctrinated with false propaganda nonsense about how Bill Clinton let OBL "get away" years before OBL had harmed anyone on American soil. Maybe they misheard the Gallup question as, "Who mishandled easier opportunities to capture OBL"? and responded as they had been brainwashed to respond.

Maybe I'm more of an optimist than you, but I think most of those 36 percent could be brought back to reality if there were loud media voices to counteract Coulter and Fox.

[Kahuna]

11. Take THAT, ABC, FAUX and bushco!!!! Never underestimate the

power of the clenis! :rofl:

[CJCRANE]

14. It's ALL Clinton's fault.

He did nothing for eight months then ignored a memo that said "Bin Laden Determined to Strike inside United States".

Oh waitaminute...

[TahitiNut]

18. 35% would blame Clinton for Mt. St. Helens.

:shrug:

... and perhaps only 10% would blame the real culprits - We The People.

[pnorman]

23. Is there a link?

It doesn't seem to Google.

pnorman
Found it on another DU posting. I don't know why Gooogle failed me, but here it is: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24733

[Lost4words]

24. 36% of the colonists wanted to stay under the crown of England!

so our country has always had these bad seeds.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. And we know who that 36% is, don't we?

Bush's knuckle-dragging, far right fundy, creationist base.

[Ioo]

35. For the love of god, please post links?

We need a link please

[slackmaster]

38. Here's a link for you

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24733

And I'm glad you asked. The OP doesn't tell the whole story.

[brettdale]

48. Kick

Kick

[hatrack]

52. Whoopee. 53% of those polled have a tenuous grasp of reality

Pardon me if I don't go around passing out cigars and pouring champagne.

[bridgit]

53. the shoe does fit, it's time for bush to start wearing it...

[kangaroo77]

54. The ABC docudrama failed to fool Americans

good :-)

[Ignacio Upton]

55. I bet it's at least three-four points higher

Considering Gallup's Republican-lean.

[sonias]

58. Finally the sheeple wake up

I'm sure these were a better mix of Americans than just Fox viewers. I'm sure those viewers blame Clinton because Fox tells them to and they obey.

Sonia

[skyounkin]

59. ABC stands for............

Always Blame Clinton.....

Guess the public don't know that.....:+