‘The Path to 9/11’ apparently didn’t work

September 27, 2006

The partisan breakdown is predictable, and the poll was taken before Clinton’s dust-up on Fox News, but Gallup released a poll today showing Americans blaming Bush more than Clinton for Osama bin Laden’s current freedom.

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.

I guess this is good news, but isn’t the poll’s question kind of dumb? The wording, specifically, asked poll respondents, “Who do you blame more for the fact that Osama bin Laden has not been captured — [ROTATED: George W. Bush, (or) Bill Clinton]?” I guess it’s interesting that Bush gets more of the blame, but he was president on 9/11, it’s been five years, Bush blew it at Tora Bora, and administration officials have no idea where bin Laden is. How could a serious person blame Clinton, who left office nearly six years ago, for bin Laden being free now?

Wouldn’t it have been more interesting if Gallup had asked which of the two Americans held more responsible for 9/11? Or maybe the growing threat of terrorism? Or how about a two-parter: a) did Clinton do enough in his counter-terrorism efforts? and b) has Bush done enough in his counter-terrorism efforts? As it is, today’s poll doesn’t seem to tell us much.

Didn’t work? 36% blame Clinton more than Bush for Bin Laden not being captured. That’s an insanely high number, there is no rational or reasoned justification for that position. It sounds to me like the right-wing propaganda (including the mini-series) is working unbelievably well on tens of millions of people.

  • The Dems need to stand up (like Tim Ryan seems willing to do, but I mean Pelosi, Reid, Hillary, Schumer) and run through the statements made by the Repubs at the time who were opposed to Clinton doing anything and were crying Wag the Dog. Throw it back in their f’ing faces. Walk around with a list of talking points, whip it out and say “Oh yeah, well here’s what Senator Roberts said at the time, and I quote,…..”

    What in the world are the Dems afraid of? Why is Tim Ryan the only guy we see getting up and speaking with any passion – currently elected officials, I mean…..

  • Here is how I will word the poll question….

    In light of the long personal and business relationship between the Bush Family and the Bin Laden family, do you think Bush or Clinton [rotate and leave a tip on the way out] had a better conflict of interest versus actionable intelegence ratio?

    a) Bush
    b) Clinton
    c) can you break a $20?

  • “As it is, today’s poll doesn’t seem to tell us much.” – CB

    I think the poll tells us that 36% of Americans are kool-aid drinkers who lie to pollsters to prop up their sorry excuse for a President. 36% is close to The Base support for Boy George II.

  • Shalimar: “36% blame Clinton more than Bush for Bin Laden not being captured. That’s an insanely high number, there is no rational or reasoned justification for that position.”

    Not to worry. That 36% is the unpersuadable bedrock of the Dubya cult. In other words, not rational or reasoned to being with.

    Obviously, “Path” DVDs will have to be mass-mailed right before Nov. 7 in order to get that number up!

  • Actually, CB, I think the poll does tell us a few things.

    First and foremost is the issue of Bush’s “base.” Regardless of “serious thinking,” it’s still locked in the 30-some-percent range; it’s likely that this number will deteriorate after the elections remove the “rubber-stamp/do-nothing” mantle from the Congress—and at least a fair portion of that “base” finally gets itself a prescription for a daily dose of reality (which should knock down all but the most cognitively-fatal cases of infectious kool-aid carcinoma).

    The 36% number also ties in nicely with Herr Bush’s current approval ratings; I’m thinking, based on this measure, that were the poll conducted last May—when our “Little Lord Fauntelroy” was in the 20s, the poll would have matched those figures.

    Then there’s the “big” issue—that a sitting President who has the Congress, the Reich, and the MSM pretty much in his pocket still gets roughly 50% more blame than a former President who had to contend with the obstruction of an opposing-party Congress. It’s worth at least a wee bit of speculation as to what Herr Bush’s “number” would be, if the MSM would put down the koolaid and shift over to large pots of black coffee, instead. Think of it—Five years, eight months, and a handful of days worth of truth-tampering and historical revision—and the “whatever” in the White House still can’t manage to get out of his rut—a rut of his own making.

    Herr Bush is like a chess game, where one side still has all its major pieces, while “his” side is down to the King and a few pawns only—and that King is screaming “Checkmate!!!” at the top of his lungs. It’s worthy of a Keystone Cops episode, if you can look past the tragedy that’s been foisted upon the nation….

  • Well, if Clinton had killed bin Laden, it wouldn’t be news now. And the Repubs would probably still be criticizing Clinton for doing it. If 9/11 had happened on Clinton’s watch, bin Laden would be dead or in prison right now. No question.

  • Not to worry. That 36% is the unpersuadable bedrock of the Dubya cult. In other words, not rational or reasoned to being with.

    That’s why I’m worried. It’s not just Dubya worshippers though they are the main problem, there have to be at least 4% on the left who are equally irrational and unreasonable in the opposite direction, probably significantly more. I think there is valid reason to be scared to death when more than 2 out of every 5 of your fellow citizens are incapable of even the most basic logic. The current state of my country terrifies me far more than any terrorist ever will.

  • Actually, CB, I think the poll does tell us a few things. First and foremost is the issue of Bush’s “base.”

    Very good point, Steve (and Lance, and Shalimar…). I should have said, “Today’s poll doesn’t seem to tell us much — except for the fact that 36% of the population is clearly delusional.”

    When I wrote the post, I had taken that for granted.

  • If you’re right about the 36% base, then it frustrates me all the further that the Dems don’t speak out more fervently. Clearly, the Dem base (which many of us here would be considered part of) would welcome it and that ~one-third who are undecided/uninvolved/uninterested, etc., might actually listen to some of it, especially when they hear how Bush, et al., have messed up this country.

    What’s the downside?

  • On the other hand, I would love to hear all of the Bush supporters try to answer a follow-up question: exactly how is Clinton more at fault than the man who has been President for the last 5 and a half years? I doubt there is a coherent answer to that question.

  • All this survey tells me is 36% of the people polled are cretins. But I already knew the world is full of cretins and will continue to be full of cretins until we evolve a bit (provided we get the chance).

    Is this so different from the person who refuses to believe someone they know committed a heinous crime? The cops may catch some guy with a bunch of feet and scalps in his deep freeze chest but there will always be some nitwit who’ll swear he was framed.

  • No it is better…ratio. I just go too wordy. My HS english teacher would not be pleased!

    Follow up on Shalimar (just above) and a clearer re-wording:
    “Which current US Presidnet is more responsible for 9/11, Bush 41 or Bush 43?”

  • “Who do you blame more for the fact that Osama bin Laden has not been captured — [ROTATED: George W. Bush, (or) Bill Clinton]?”

    This is more than dumb – this is offensive. It conflates Clinton – operating in in a completely different political, military, and international scenario, limited to one airstrike that more or less “just missed”, faced with political and press oppostion at every turn, a lack of awareness of the terrorist threat in the public consciousness and hampered by the lack of co-operation from neighboring Uzbekistan and Pakistan in providing refueling and overflight rights – with Bush, handed a complete plan by his predecessor, backed almost unanimously by politicians, public, and press, aided by an extremely sympathetic global community, and given carte blanche military operations failing for over 5 1/.2 years. It’s completely offensive to match up the fictional “Path to 9/11” encounter when they could have gotten Osama but for Sandy Berger against everything that Bush has and hasn’t done since he took office.

    “Dumb” hardly describes how wrong this question is.

  • I’m with Lance and with CB. Polling gets absurd at times, and how often does it really “tell us anything” on this type of question? Without understanding the belief system and motives/agendas of those polled, I have to greet many of poll results with a resounding “So what?”

  • I think that the path to 9/11 didn’t sway opionion because it basically sucked. I wasn’t just highly partison, but also slow moving didactice and well, just plain boring!

    Its just like the old “red scare” movies of the 50’s

  • Shalimar,

    exactly how is Clinton more at fault than the man who has been President for the last 5 and a half years? I doubt there is a coherent answer to that question.

    Its all about Lewinsky and raising the top marginal tax rates for that crowd. Remember they are not part of the reality-based community.

  • CB,
    I think your title is misrepresenting the results. It’s unreasonable to expect that Path to 9/11 would transform voter sentiments to such a degree that a majority would blame Clinton. The best one can hope for, especially given the one-shot nature of this, is a marginal uptick. But we really don’t know if this bit of propaganda had any effect at all one way or the other–for that we’d need trend data. We have no way of knowing if the proportion blaming Clinton was higher, lower, or unchanged. Moreover, we’d need to know if the sample even watched the program.

    Apart from that, I’m not sure I’d trust the information anyway based on the wording. I think what we’re seeing here is simply a popularity poll by another name.

  • The Bush administration blaming Clinton is like a fifty eight year old man still blaming his parents for his problems. Time to accept responsibility.

  • “It’s unreasonable to expect that Path to 9/11 would transform voter sentiments to such a degree that a majority would blame Clinton.” – Mr. Flibble

    Actually, this misses the Rovian intent. “The Path to 9/11” exists solely to give The Base some answer when questioned about Boy George II’s undeniable blame for allowing the attack after eight months in office and numerous warnings. Now The Base has a ready answer, even if demonstrably wrong. Until they were given such an answer there was the slightest danger that their minds might open and a ray of understanding might break through that their holy anointed President was a total f**k-up. But as JRS Jr. has again proven today, given a talking point, their minds close like a steel trap.

  • Lance,
    All sounds good to me. In that case, the poll still sucks–it doesn’t even tell us how much the steel trap has closed!

  • What Homer said.

    Dems should be beating the shit out of the Republicans with this one, and any other issue where such the majority sides with them. Besides, it goes to Bush’s “strong suit” (security).

    If we had a Karl Rove, this issue would be pounded to DEATH.

    • Comments are closed.