CAUTION: This will no doubt strike some of you as inflammatory. That is not my intention, though I am playing devil's advocate to a certain extent. It's just that there are very many questions which have arisen since September 11, 2001, which have not even been raised - never mind begun to be answered. I posed the above question as a sort of teaser.

This is the sort of question which has got me crucified on other discussion boards for even mentioning (though it may have been unwise to ask such a question in November, 2001, when every second vehicle in the country looked like General Patton's staff car). I'm hoping that there is now enough distance from the tragic events of September 11, 2001 - and enough civility on this board - to at least allow my natural political paranoia to surface, however briefly.

There are those, generally dismissed out of hand as conspiracy theorists of the worst kind, who claim that the Bush administration had foreknowledge of the September 11 attack. I personally don't feel I have enough information to make an informed decision one way or the other - though I am not as quick as most to utterly dismiss such "nut cases" who harbor what I consider to be realistic suispicions regarding any our elected officials. If the Bush admin did have foreknowledge (even if not in detail) and did nothing to prevent the attacks, I must admit that I would not be surprised in the least. One of the main reasons is that Bush could not have designed a better event to salvage and lend credibility to a presidency which to that date had been undistinguished, foundering, and still considered by many to be illegitimate in the first place.

Without the September 11 attack, the Bush admin would still be trying to explain, for example, how it came to be elected in the first place; its energy policy and the relationship between Enron and the Exectutive; its shameless favoring of our wealthiest citizens; its disregard for the environment; its unilateral abrogation of several international treaties and protocols; its ludicrous revival of the star wars nonsense; and its unstinting support for Israel in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions. The Bush administration had threatened war with Afghanistan in August 2000 (though without any cause which would've been accepted by the American public) and had surely been looking for any excuse - any excuse - to pursue a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein (which they still are). The attack, attributed without evidence to Osama bin Laden, drove all of the troublesome issues which had been plaguing the Bush admin to the back pages (and has kept them there), gave them a very good reason to conquer Afghanistan, and is, apparently, by some twisted sense of logic which I'm still unable to unravel, giving them some pretext for attacking Iraq, Korea, Iran, and anyone else who strikes George Bush's fancy. It has also given them the opportunity to institute the most autocratic government this country has seen since the Civil War.

Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, has gained what exactly? The opportunity of running and hiding for the rest of his life? And, okay, maybe the satisfaction of knowing that he is partially responsible for a severe curtailment of American freedoms - though, for that, he must also thank his collaborators in the White House.

Please - I am not suggesting that anyone in the Bush administration did have any foreknowledge of the events of September 11 - nor am I suggesting complicity on any level whatsoever. BUT - hypothetically - Bush couldn't have asked for a better event to boost his ratings, conceal his mammoth shortcomings, cover up quite a few potential scandals, and push through a politcal agenda bordering on fascism. There are those who feel that this does at least suggest a motive for the Bush cabal to have ignored any warnings which there might have been - to willfully fail to "connect the dots". Others - doubtless many on this board - feel that to even conceive of such a notion borders on treason. Any thoughts?

I never trust a poll that forces an answer.

How about a "both" or "neither" category?

I'd vote both (I'll explain when I'm not on my boss' dime )

No offense Wertz...BUT WHAT WERE YOU THINKING??!!!

Good God man!

But really, i think Bush benefited the most because his sour approval ratings spiked overnight

Osama didn't benefit too well unless you see getting bombed outta your skull a benefit

Wertz, I for one believe you were thinking quite clearly.

Even if Bush did not know anything beforehand, he certainly took advantage of it in a hurry to further his own agenda. Any politician would, of course. He just happens to have a really scary agenda.

Perhaps I am an eternal optimist, but I tend to think they did not know beforehand. Hindsight is 20/20, and once something like that happens, it's easy to look back and see the various warning signs.

Besides, my conspiracy quota is all filled up with the Afghan pipeline stuff!

I agree with you Jamie. Kinda like when I got a telephone poll question back in the Late 90's.

The caller asked, "Who do you think is a better person?"

Tonya Harding or Hillary Clinton..

I kid you not, I almost dropped the phone I was laughing so hard.

The best part was, I had read about a week later that a poll had come out saying people had an 85% favorable rating of Mrs Clinton.

Gee, I wonder why


Sleeper

That's what the "Null Vote" is for.

But I would vote both. That's not null

How can "both" benefit more?

Wertz , Still seems to be slanted as to get the answer you want to see. Which is that George Bush benefited. Which he did there is no doubt. But you can use this unscientific poll to show negatively against Bush. Saying that by benefiting from the events of 9/11 Bush could have known and did not do anything just too benefit from it.

What if somebody were to post a poll wanting to slant against animal rights.

Giving you only 2 choices to answer this question.


"If you could only prevent one of the following from happening, what would you prevent?"

1> A small human baby from being crushed to death.

2> A baby seal from being crushed to death.

Obviously(unless you are sick in the head) if forced to answer this question would chose answer 1. Then the polling place could say that in a poll people are against saving baby seals. Which we all know is untrue, but according to the limited data of this poll can be slanted to appear true.



With only these 2 choices, not a very fair poll is it?

Quarkhead, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Sleeper: Lighten up, dude. The poll is not for publication. I'm not working on a front page article for the NY Times: Majority Feels Bush Benefitted from 9/11 Attack! The poll was, in part, to make the point ("I am playing devil's advocate to a certain extent") that those who find a motive for the Bush admin to have overlooked warnings about an imminent attack are not completely in left field. Inadvertantly, I may also have made a point about polling in general. No poll is "very fair". Faced with this sort of question, I think we can begin to see how Bush garnered such high "approval" ratings for more than a year. Your "neither and/or both" vote is duly noted - I'll inform the editors of the Times at once.

Are you always sarcastic when you can't come up with a rebuttal?

Sleeper - that was his response. Let us not further sidetrack Wertz's thread by complaining about polls. That would make an excellent new topic.