NY Post editorial accused Dem candidates in favor of Feingold bill of not "support[ing] the troops"
A May 17 New York Post editorial touted a flawed poll on whether Democrats believe that President Bush had "advance knowledge" of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and misrepresented Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) proposal to discontinue the use of funds after March 31, 2008, for "the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces." The editorial claimed that the four Democratic presidential candidates who supported Feingold's proposal -- Sens. Barack Obama (IL), Joe Biden (DE), Chris Dodd (CT) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) -- do not "genuinely 'support the troops.' "
The editorial asserted:
Just how far gone the Democrats are on 9/11 can be seen in the results of a new Rasmussen Reports poll, which found that fully 35 percent of all Democrats believe President Bush had advance knowledge of the attacks - and another 26 percent say they're not sure.
How sad.
But as Media Matters for America has noted, the Rasmussen Reports poll question -- "Did Bush know about the 9/11 attacks in advance?" -- was ambiguous. Respondents could have been merely saying that Bush received ample warning of possible attacks. Indeed, Bush received a briefing on August 6, 2001, titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US," which indicated that Osama bin Laden wanted to conduct terrorist attacks on U.S. cities, that members of his Al Qaeda terrorist network had lived in or traveled to the United States for years, that bin Laden had previously said he wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft, and that "FBI information since that time indicate[d] patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings."
The editorial continued:
But it gets worse.
Yesterday, more than half of the Senate's Democrats supported an unsuccessful resolution that would automatically cut off all funding for combat operations in Iraq after March 31, 2008.
Voting in favor were at least four Democratic presidential candidates: Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd -- and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who until now has rejected congressional calls for any funding cutoffs.
So much for consistency - and any notion that the Democrats who want to be president genuinely "support the troops." Clearly the candidates are in thrall to the party's hard-left MoveOn.org crowd.
In fact, contrary to the editorial's assertion that Democrats who voted in favor of Feingold's proposal do not "genuinely 'support the troops,' " the proposal does not simply "cut off all funding for combat operations in Iraq"; it stops funding for further deployments after March 31, 2008, while continuing to provide funding for the security of U.S. troops. The legislation specifically states that the proposed prohibition of funds would not apply to purposes "to provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel," as well as for "targeted operations ... against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations." From Feingold's proposal:
(a) TRANSITION OF MISSION.--The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).
(b) COMMENCEMENT OF SAFE, PHASED REDEPLOYMENT FROM IRAQ.--The President shall commence the Iraq that are not essential to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS.--No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.
(d) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED PURPOSES.--The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:
(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.
(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.
(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.
Oh yes, and oppose pay and benefits raise is.
They're nothing but sick bastards.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/17/white-house-opposed-pay-raises-for-troopswidows-benefits/
The question asked "Did Bush know about the 9/11 attacks in advance" is not ambiguous at all, as this threads wants people to believe to rationalize these Democrats who nodded yes.
If the question was meant to gage Bush's actions on warnings he received, it would have been asked "Did Bush fail to act on 9/11 warnings"?
I give you that one. Good point.
Tommy:
You just proved that question is ambiguous by interpreting how they SHOULD have phrased it in accord with your perceptions. In other words, to you it is clearly asking whether or not Bush was patiently waiting for an attack he and others within the government knew about well in advance. But to someone who isn't either a conspiracy theorists or sensitive to such theories might just as easily read this as was Bush privy to information that warned of an attack, which is yes, he was, the August 6, 2001 PDB, or no, he had no such info at his disposal, PDB or not, or I'm not sure because I don't like to think about oogie things like 9-11.
Nevertheless, it's a bad question because it leaves too much room for interpretation. Just to prove my point, asking
Did Bush and the Bush administration play an active role in facilitating the 9-11 attacks?
leaves little room for ambiguity.
Randy
Nice try, Fantagore. The way the question is stated has only one sensible interpretation. If the pollers meant to imply what you say, then it would have been a simple matter for them to have stated it thus: "Do you believe that ... he had prior knowledge ... or that he may have had intelligence indicating that such an attack was possible...?"
Do you know what the word ambiguous MEANS? Your attempt at a point was if they had meant it to be CLEARLY what you said but no one is making that claim had they done that it wouldnt have been AMBIGUOUS.
Solon, I think you may have missed my point. My point is that it is NOT ambiguous. Having knowledge of forces at work that might someday soon produce a 9/11 style attack is not implied as part of the question. The question is clear and unambiguous in clearly implying prior knowledge of the attack.
Closer to the point of this argument thread is the question of how those polled interpreted the question. Do you stand on the theory that many of those who answered "yes, he knew beforehand" were interpeting the question in some other sense than specific knowledge of 9/11? If not, then the conclusions about the mindset of those Democrats answering yes, is logical.
oldmarine, your reasoning doesn't make sense. If you have a date this Saturday night with Jane, and she e-mails you that you're meeting at 8:00, does that mean that you are at home from exactly 8:00 to 8:01. No. You're prepared, so if she shows up at 9:30 or 7:30, you're ready.
The tone of the question presented is "did Bush receive an invitation, but didn't find out when the party was?"
Or, did Bush plan the party?
When I originally heard the report, I heard the first question, and actually laughed aloud at what I thought was Republican stupidity, though I think it is entirely possible that D's and R's were hearing different questions.
Admittedly, Dems tend to think more in grays than Reaper-publicans.
I think it's a desperate leap by the MSM and the conservative elitists to frame the argument this way.
Bush666, Okay. From the top. As I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong), the question was literally put "Did Bush know about the 9/11 attacks in advance?"
I say it's unambiguous. You say its ambiguous. I cite as my main argument that I have faith in the questioner that he meant precisely what he asked and didn't feel it need any qualifiers. I argued that if the questioner needed qualifiers, he would have STATED the qualifiers, thus he meant exactly what he asked: did he know beforehand that the event was planned or did he not?
if the questioner needed qualifiers, he would have STATED the qualifiers
The fatal flaw in your argument is that whether or not the questioner thought it was ambiguous is wholly irrelevant. The issue is, was it ambiguous enough that the respondents could have reasonably taken it to mean something other than the precise meaning you wish to place on it.
For example, could a person surveyed take "9/11" as a generic phrase for "terrorist attack" rather than a reference to the specific events of a specific day? Considering that it is often enough used in that sense - the frequent description of some future attack as "another 9/11" is one example - I don't find that unreasonable. Given, then, the infamous August "bin Laden determined to strike in US" memo, answering "yes" to the question makes sense.
If the question was meant to gage Bush's actions on warnings he received
No sale. The issue is not some different question but how what actually was asked - assuming it really was intended to see how many people believed Bush knew specifically that 9/11 was coming and deliberately did nothing about it, which is how people like you and the Post want to read it - could have easily been misinterpreted by people surveyed. Don't change the subject.
The N(yuk- yuk) Y(uk) Post's *investigators* apparently can't read... SA 1097 sec. 5, which I found in 2 links plainly says that about the funding...
If memory serves, the New York Post had a blaring front-page headline calling the members of the Iraq Study Group "Surrender Monkeys" when the ISG report came out.
I think that tells you everything you need to know about the Post's standards and the quality of its -cough- "journalism."
Right up there with Reuters which won't allow the use of the term "terrorist".
actually, oldmarine, if you want to get picky the use of the term "surrender monkeys" could be more closely compared to using "terrorist", as neither is a purely subjective term.
I stand corrected. Thanks.
what ever happend to the term "homicide bombers" anyway? does fox still use that one or was it too big of a word for their viewers?
The New York Post is a disgusting piece of trash. For the last time, being against this criminal war does not equate with supporting the troops.
Dorisrussel, And your alternative to this criminal war would be ...?
Well mine would be to go after the terrorists who actually DID attack us instead of fighting a more profit friendly war based on neocon political wetdreams. I know Halliburton needs a new parking lot but American troops shouldnt be dying to provide one. By using terrorism as an EXCUSE to fight a war unrelated to terrorism, I mean if our real problem was extremist Islamic fundamentalists then invading the most secular country in the region was insanity, we have assured less of the kind of international co-operation we need to actually fight terrorism itself instead of use it as a fit any war Bush wants to fight excuse. There is a military component to this fight but the army is a broadsword not a scalpel and using it as the ONLY tool to fight terrorism is like using a pipewrench to do brainsurgery. We need the international co-operation necessary for special teams to go where the terrorists are intelligence sharing none of this is going to happen as long as we are using terrorism as an EXCUSE for whatever geopolitical schemes this administration has cooked up half baked in their world domination delusions see PNAC.
Hey, Solon- just which part of VICTORY do you have a problem with?
See ya at the America-Haters meeting !
I have a problem with victory over a country that posed no thread to us.
truthseeker77 , I may have forgotten my sarcasm tags again. Sorry.
And by the way, victory over who?
The Shia are fighting the Shia
The Shia are fighting the Sunni
The Sunni are fighting us
The Sunni are fighting Al Qaeda
Al Qaeda is fighting the Shia
Al Qaeda is fighting us
Al Qaeda is fighting the Sunni.
etc. etc. etc.
And you have the balls to simplify it all into a US vs. some evil rival. We are there to get the Iraqis to get along, but unfortunately, it is OUR PRESCENCE tha exacerbates differences and make Iraq the chaotic place that it now is.
Is it potluck again or will it be catered this time?
Solon, potluck doesn't work, as there won't be any hard-working conservatives at the meeting, just freeloading liberals showing up empty handed.
And catering? Why do you feel entitled to a handout?
SOLON, “Halliburton, Iraqi war unrelated to terrorism, the need for international cooperation, geopolitical schemes, and world domination.”: familiar left wing clichés and talking points.
So, you don’t think we ARE going after the terrorists who actually did the 9/11 attack? That’s what Afghanistan was about. Right? So, back to Iraq: I’ve said elsewhere on this blog that IMHO we went into Iraq for two reasons: (1) to demonstrate to the Islamists that Mogadishu did not represent our usual way of doing business, and (2) because we really did believe Saadam was on his way to having a nuclear capability.
Since invading Iraq, we’ve discovered that whatever Saadam had in the way of WMD assets, they were successfully trucked out of the country to Syria before our invasion. (You may recall hearing of this intel gathered from overhead sensors, and the fact that the biological, I think Anthrax but don’t quote me, attack in Jordon was performed with Iraqi bioweapon warheads and would have killed “tens of thousands” of Jordanians had the attack not been thwarted). So, how far along was Saadam with his nuclear ambitions. We don’t know and may never know. The truth is somewhere in Syria mainly.
In addition, there was an Al Qeada training camp in northern Iraq prior to the invasion. Could it have been there without Saadam’s approval? That’s doubtful. Since the invasion, Al Qaeda has become probably the dominant force in promoting attacks on both Iraqi civilians and coalition forces.
Now this stuff about “using terrorism as an EXCUSE for whatever geopolitical schemes this administration has cooked up” is ridiculous and I think you know that. So, I don’t see that you’ve presented a cogent alternative to what we’re currently attempting to do.
What we’re doing now is a lot tougher than what we did in the first two world wars. As in Viet Nam, we now have not only the enemy to fight over there, we have the left over here.
Do the words "imperialism" mean anything to you? "Conquest" or "pillage" or "rule" or "invade" or "occupy" or "enslave" or "kill in millions"? How about "Crusade"? Any of them ring a bell?
They do. What's your point?
I think the point is made better by two time Medal of Honor winner General Smedley Butler than I can make it
So you accuse me of using talking points then trot out flat out delusions. No we dont know about any WMDs going to Syria, that is a fantasy, it is the a dog ate my WMDs EXCUSE. How in the world could they have done so without us seeing them considering our constant surviellance with satelites and overflights. There is ZERO evidence this happened. Remember Kay and Duelfer? They didnt SAY that the WMDs might have gone to Syria they said THEY WERENT THERE and hadnt been since the mid nineties at the latest. How is it that you take WMDs that DONT EXIST anywhere? If we went into Iraq to, show the Arab world how tough we are, clearly another delusion why didnt Bush SAY thats why we should go there and allow the people to decide if it were worth one American life. NO WMDs that didnt exist is why we went into Iraq, the Rightwing has changed the EXCUSE for going into Iraq what five six times? Its WMDs, its mushroom clouds, ok so they dont have WMDs but 9/1 , 9/11 ok so they didnt have anything to do with 9/11 but they were collaborating with al Queda they were holding hands with al Queda, ok so they werent so now we are supposed to take but we had to show the Arab world how tough we are seriously???? Please stop, you are making my stomach hurt. Firs of all the Ansar al Islam shack was in the northern part of Iraq which Saddam had no control over in the Kurdish autonomous zone. We were providing the Kurds protection with our no flight zone. That is another already loooong debunked talking point without merit.
It says a lot that you consider other Americans the enemy because they disagree with you. To me there is no more dispicable un-American. It tells me you are not only ignorant but a fascist. As a citizen I am at the top layer of Government its not my place to shut up and just do whatever they say. The government works for ME. George Bush works for ME, I have more than a right I have an obligation to demand they uphold the values I associate with our country. I dont thing ignorant brainwashed morons like you are the enemy just misguided warmongers that love to see Americans DIE.
#1. The Democrats passed a war funding bill. It was the President who will have cut off the funds for the troops since he did the veto reoutine.
#2 If Bush just had to do his stupid war, he could have listened to teh military and sent enough troops so we did not totally decimate the Iraqi infrastructure. But the phony pull down of the Sadaam statue (orchestrated by our guys) did not reflect our control over Iraq in one small bit. We mucked up Iraq and had no competancy by this administration to see it was put back together
#3. We have spent so much money paying off the no bid useless contracts and private soldiers that we will be bankrupted for years to come, all this with the mess still going on more and more every month.
#4. Bush has let our military down woefully since he did not make certain he had proper funds for body armor and armored vehicles. Our young men and women are paying a very high price for this incompetance.
#5. Bush has little observable interest in caring for returning injured or thos who gave their lives there. If he ever had the guts to go to Dover to meet an incoming plane loaded with those who died in his stupid war, I would faint.
#6. Now last of all, he is even trying to cut the benefits that would go to injured military and the families who were killed in Iraq. His legacy will be this horror in Iraq he had presided over.
How many times do we have to say this? The War in Iraq is not helping us win the "War on Terror"...it is only making it worse. The longer we keep stomping around in Iraq, the more terrorists we will create. No Democrat is suggesting that we abandon the "War on Terror". Any Republican who says we are is a G.D. Liar.
I'm not a Republican but you are full of crap. Terrorism is increasing in France, Germany and Russia -- all countries that wanted nothing to do with Iraq.
To those fine HAWKS who sit at home and demand that our troops stay in Iraq, YOU WIN..As a self-appointed Prince of American Fairness(and sarcasm), I give in to your stupidity. And I suggest the following:
We vote for a bill that gives the American president full authority of the military and the funding..hell with the Constitution. We vote to give a zillion dollars to fight the War on Terror, the War in Iraq, the War in Iran and the War of the Words and Worlds and any other War you people want. We also tell these volunteer soldiers that it is too bad but they will have to stay in the military for 10 more years.
My only requirement is that we first bring the troops home from Iraq and start all over. Then, you true warriors can volunteer and go get 'em all over the world. Remember, we got a zillion dollars to spend and more to come. I am sure that you are willing to give up your comfortable life and do what is good for America. Be a GREAT American, fight for your country, why have someone else do it!!
P.S. Don't worry about money, there should be about $30.00 left-over because I am giving Hal E. Burton control of the purse.
The Prince of War
March 31, 2008....that's 10 months away...310 days...at 3 GIs and 100 Iraqis dead a day....930 more dead GI's, 31,000 more dead Iraqis.
And then the Exceptions kick in to continue the occupation....even Feingold has sold out. "To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel". Talk about an abusable loophole. Iraqi oil fields to become US infrastructure.
It's a non-plan. It's occupation by same means. War under a new set of lies.
Did Bush know? Were his lies covering only neglilgence and incompetence? Was his refusal to tesify to the Commission they stonewalled for 14 mo., only having a chat, with Cheney, behind closed doors, all notes confiscated, just to protect "national security"? Was the reason the Secret Service left him at his publicized location for a half hour after the 2nd plane hit, let alone Bush sitting there for 7 minutes, just cuz they "didn't want to run him out of there"?
Perhaps, but there needs to be a full investigation, what with these kind of ommissions and distortions in the 9/11 commission [link to www.911truth.org]
and these Top 40 [link to www.911truth.org]