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--

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

:rofl:

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:

[AX10]

1. K & R!

Change is in the air! The people are waking up!

[Tippy]

6. Indeed it is a beautiful morning....K&R

[rodeodance]

2. ~~~ oh, its a beatiful morning~~~

[rodeodance]

3. compared with 36% blaming Clinton.= Bush base

[msanthrope]

11. Correct. That's the Same 36% Who Believe Saddam = 9/11

and that Intelligent Design is a science......

[EFerrari]

18. And that Nixon shouldn't be impeached. Same old.

[pauliedangerously]

35. While we're at it...

...and that Joe MaCarthy was a hero. True dat...same OLD.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. Great to know that some of my fellow Americans are awake!

[bdamomma]

5. You just have to place the blame on bushie

how can anyone forget "bin laden determined to strike inside the US" and apparently it was on while bushie was on vacation.

[marchcalls]

7. What was the Gallop Question

Pre 9/11 capture/kill or post 9/11 capture/kill

or did they not specify?

[Beetwasher]

8. Fixed OP W/ Link To Poll Results and Question

The question:

Who do you blame more for the fact that Bin Laden has not been captured: GWB or BC?

Very straight forward and direct. What the fuck is the difference pre or post? That's pretty silly if you think about it. Who would blame BC for failing to capture OBL POST 9/11?? It would make no sense to make that distinction.

[marchcalls]

9. why the hostility?

It was just a question.

I was just wondering how Governor Bush of texas could have got him.

I hate questions like these - figner pointing and blame... it sure doesnt help dems win elections. we have seen that time and time again.

The topic should be what the dems are going to do about iraq, bin laden, afganistan etc. need to look forward - not backward.

[Bridget Burke]

12. The time frame was not mentioned.....

Clinton tried to capture or kill Bin Ladin, but failed. Partly because of the idiotic failed Impeachment. Louis Freeh of the FBI was more worried about the President's "scandals" than finding terrorists. Congress accused Clinton of "wagging the dog" when he tried.

Bush's people received full information on Clinton's anti-terror efforts but did nothing. More specific threats were noted in the summer of 2001--Bush went on vacation. After 9/11, Bush swore to "get" Bin Ladin but let him escape. Since then, he's claimed that Bin Ladin was not important. Now, he's flip-flopping again.

I'm well aware that "Governor" Bush could do nothing about Bin Ladin. He was too busy screwing up my State.

Bush strutted & posed through the 5 year memorial services for 9/11. He continues to use it as an excuse for any damn thing he wants to do--attack civil liberties, attack Iraq, etc.

Yes, the Republicans wish we'd shut up about this.

[marchcalls]

15. maybe it will work this time

i was just hoping dems would offer a platform other than the same unsuccessful "bush sucks" eg ideas, plans for the future.

[Beetwasher]

30. LOL! If You Haven't Seen Their Platform

It's only because you ain't looking. What a surprise.

[marchcalls]

46. 3rd time a charm

i dont understand the hostility.

People do need to look for it .. because they arent talking about it. Iraq and placing blame for 9/11 is what they are talking about.

maybe the 02,04 playbook will work this time ... sorry to offend.

[Beetwasher]

58. Dude, You're Out Of Your Mind. The Dems Blamed 9/11 on Bush in '02 & '04??

Really? That was the Dem playbook in the last elections? On what planet?

The Dems ARE talking about other issues as well. The media just so happens to have latched onto THIS issue, and you know what? That's cool w/ me. It's working. Whatever works. The last three elections the ONLY focused on bread and butter issues and they lost. They are only NOW taking the fight to the Repubs on security, and it's working.

[oasis]

38. Thank you for your "concern".

:-)

[Crunchy Frog]

61. I don't suppose you were paying any attention to the '04 campaign.

Too young to vote then? The Democrats had quite a positive platform, and very purposefully steered away from "bush sucks" type negativity. They probably would have done better if they had gone a bit negative, at least to the same degree as the swifty business.

Now that you're old enough to vote, I hope that you will become a closer observer of what is going on politically. You will learn alot by doing so.

[marchcalls]

64. question

Is the hostility common in here?

I suggested a forward thinking, progressive agenda and these
people are going nuts.

I dont understand

[Crunchy Frog]

66. Only to certain umm...kinds of posters.

If you know what I mean. ;)

[Jawja]

34. "Yes, the Republicans wish we'd shut up about this. "

And THEY are the ones who STARTED the conversation with their "Path to 9/11" propaganda piece.

[Beetwasher]

29. Umm, He Wasn't Gov. In The 8 Months Before 9/11

When Richard Clarke was running around w/ his hair on fire screaming about an upcoming attack.

And Chimpy's been Pres. for almost six years and STILL no OBL.

Don't like the finger pointing? Tell it to Chimpy and his propogandists who started by trying to blame Clinton. They started it, we'll finish it.

Don't like the hostility? Stop asking stupid irrelevant questions.

[marchcalls]

47. ok

WOW ... im really feeling the compassion of the left today.

This didnt work in 02 or 04. maybe it will this time.
I'll drop it since all are so offended.

[Beetwasher]

57. WTF are You Talking About??? Seriously, What Planet Are You On?

In the past 3 elections the Dems took the fight to the Repubs on Nat'l Security issues? Really? What planet do you live on? In the last three elections the Dems ceded the Nat'l security issues to the Repubs almost completely. WTF are you talking about? This isn't a "Bush sucks platform", this is a "Bush is incompetent at KEEPING YOU SAFE" strategy. And it's working.

[marchcalls]

63. are you ok?

the 00 election wasnt about national security. i never wrote that.
so it wasnt the last 3 elections .. it was the last 2.

seriously - i think you are confusing my posts with someone elses, or you arent reading them.

[Beetwasher]

68. The Last Two Elections The Dems Campaigned On Nat'l Security??? Really?

What planet do you live on? Seriously. Are YOU ok? I think you might have had a head injury.

[marchcalls]

71. regional coverage

maybe the difference in regional media coverage.

the campaign news down here in 04 was 90% nat'l security: bush awol, the cbs memos, swift boats, flipflop on the war, iraq, iraq, iraq. Maybe they were talking about something else where you are.

02 - the memorable issue was the democrat conrolled senate holding up the dept homeland security bill.

[Crunchy Frog]

60. You're absolutely right about finger pointing and blame

not helping Dems win elections. When Republicans are finger pointing and blaming Democrats, and the Democrats don't counter it, they do lose elections. I'm sure glad that the Democrats, led by President Clinton, are countering it this time.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[crim son]

10. The difference might be that the Pretzel

made the case and received support for an all-out effort to capture OBL, while Clinton's efforts were opposed. Even with support and resources available to him, * hasn't succeeded either. It's hard not to notice what an outstading failure our fearless leader has finally (!) turned out to be.

[marchcalls]

13. the "bush sucks" platform

Dems tried the "bush sucks" platform in 00,02,04 and lost.

I just think that they should try something else this time.

maybe not ....

[Sterling]

25. Sadly I think "Bush sucks" will do the job fine this time

He really does suck that bad, you have to admit that (can you admit it, I wonder).

I am worried what the next President's strategy will be as well. I am pretty sure that next Prez will be a Dem and only because Bush has sucked so bad anything, even a Dem with no plan or idea's will be preferable to anyone who resembles Bush and or RWers in general. The "mainstream" of America has turned against these losers. What are they turning too? I don't think anyone really knows but most everyone agrees It can't be any worse in terms of leadership.

Maybe HC will win and be terrible as well. Bush has set the bar so low that anyone will look better. Unfortunately he has fucked things up so bad even a great Dem with a plan would have a very hard time fixing the mess. So the mess will go on......

I agree that we need to look forward but only a Republican would think it is not important to face facts that 9-11 was Bush's fault, at least.

[marchcalls]

48. hmmmm

I agree with some of that. But I dont blame President Bush or President Clinton for 9/11. Im sticking with blaming the terrorists. sorry to disappoint.

[silvermachine]

26. Well...

...if Bush didn't "suck" so badly, you'd probably hear less of it, so it is indeed an effective strategy to repeatedly point out not only how badly he "sucks", but why he "sucks". And actually, it seems that when Bush is under relentless attack for "sucking" so badly, it does resonate with the electorate. Only when we try to play nice or find common ground with the GOP and take more conservative stances on issues do we falter.
It's not like the GOP has had anything other than basically "Clinton sucks" and "liberals suck" (yeah, those 8 years of peace and prosperity really "sucked" didn't they?) in their intellectual arsenal for the last 20 years and it hasn't seems to hurt them at the polls. Of course, now we have the never ending so-called war-on-terror for them to truly terrorize people with. Another real subtle stroke.
Notice that Kerry was ahead in the polls when the Dems were on full attack mode with Farenheit 911 in the theaters, protests, people speaking up instead of wringing their hands in mortal dread of the next salvo from Rove and co. Only after the less than adequate response to the Swiftboating, character assassination and distortions that Kerry faced, did the Dems start to lose ground.
You see, we have and give specific reasons why Bush does "suck":

The deceit that was used to sell the war in Iraq.
Cronyism and corruption on an unprecedented scale (Delay, Abramoff, etc.)
Trampling on the Constitution.
The failure to prevent 9/11.
Polarization of the nation via wedge issues and fear-mongering.
Rollback of environmental protection measures.

Look, I could go on and on and on, but I'm sure you know what I mean, don't you?

To imply that all we have is "Bush sucks" is what I've been hearing from people like Mehlman, Karen Hughes, and their ilk and I'm sure you wouldn't want to be lumped in with that crowd.

Would you?

[marchcalls]

50. i know there is more

Its not being talked about or campaigned on. Harry Reid, Pelosi, etc etc are all talking about Iraq and or the Clinton story.

Hopefully before the election they will speak outloud on their platform.

[Beetwasher]

32. Oh Bullshit

If you're not aware of the Dems platform it's because you don't want to be.

Take you're talking point propoganda elsewhere, Chester.

[marchcalls]

51. i never said that

I never said i didnt know the platform. My point is that its not being talked about.
its all iraq and the clinton story.

Democrats have always polled better on social issues, and worse on national security.

Propaganda: dems shouldnt repeat the losing strategy of 00, 02, & 04.

i dont know how you get propaganda out of that .. but you are obviously offended - sorry.

[Beetwasher]

55. Too Bad They Never TRIED This Strategy Before

In 00, 02 and 04 they took on Bush head on? Really? They did that? :rofl: Wrong. They ran away from directly engaging the admin. on these questions. THAT is arguably why they failed. Because they DIDN'T question his credentials and DIDN'T take the fight to them. Instead they DID try to focus mostly on bread and butter and social issues. So, WTF are you talking about? You must have been watching way different elections than everyone else.

[marchcalls]

62. I think you are reading someone else's posts

I didnt write that they took on bush head on.

[Beetwasher]

69. But They ARE NOW, So Tell Me How The Strategy Is The Same

NOW as it was then. Go ahead and tell me.

"dems shouldnt repeat the losing strategy of 00, 02, & 04."

What was the losing strategy then? Now they are taking Bush head on regarding Nat'l Security and keeping us safe. They did that before? Really? :eyes:

[marchcalls]

70. miscommunication

this was just a miscommunication

In an nutshell - i think the message has been 'vote for us because Bush is bad' as opposed to 'vote for us because we have these great ideas and we're gonna do x, y & z'

Just an opinion, but i think the latter would be a more persuasive campaign - rather than preaching to the choir. They could do this while incorporating national security

When we control congress/the money, we will:

- allocate $xx billion for port security & border security- repubs havent done it, we will.

- Pass legislation regarding a timetable for withdrawal of troops of iraq. no more money after xyz date.

etc, etc. republicans have left the door wide open this year.

[crim son]

36. I happen to agree with you,

because however evident is that fact, many people are loathe to embrace it, even those whose political and moral values he's betrayed. The thing is, there is a lot more to the democratic platform than "Bush Sucks" but so little media time is devoted to it that the message is weakened and sullied. There is infinitely more air time given to "the dems have no plan for national security" when this is an absolute falsehood, than there is to the dem plan for organized withdrawal from Iraq, a tightening of port security, a real focus on Afghanistan and OBL (to name just a few salient points).

Welcome to DU :eyes:

[marchcalls]

52. Thank you

Thank you. this is my point.

I think i really upset some people though ... sorry to all.

[Ilsa]

14. Excellent! This tide of sewage will splash into Condi's

presidential aspirations boat as well. I don't care what she says, there are plenty who want her to run next, and this should help kill off that possibility. I guess I should be happy about that.

[FogerRox]

16. Henry Gibson: Very interesting.... Kn Freakin R

17pt spread, nearly the same as the Generic DEM, up 15 pts, which ahs been trending up from 10%.

[LibDemAlways]

17. March 13, 2002 chimp Press Conference in response to a

question about Bin Ladin "I don't know where he is.You know, I don't spend much time on him."

Note that the press conference was just about 6 months after 9/11. Chimp didn't give a flying fuck before 9/11 about Bin Ladin and by six months after, he was publically proclaiming his lack of interest in finding him.

Given chimp's own public pronouncement, which the corporate whores have conveniently forgotten, I think it's very clear who is responsible for Bin Ladin's continued freedom.

[aquart]

20. Which reminds me: if bin Ladin's in Pakistan, why are we in Afghanistan?

[lyonn]

21. bush: "I don't know where he is. You know, I don't spend much

time on him". Thanks for reminding us of the dates. Sheesh, 6 months and he is on to Iraq.

And, bush allowed the Afghan fighters to search for Osama during Tora Bora. Media at that time suggested that it would take too many U.S. troops to search the mountains and capture a cornered Osama and left the "trivial" job to the Afghans to do it. Who didn't wonder how much $$$ changed hands in letting Osama make his great escape. We have lost 2700+ troops in Iraq and bush couldn't send in our own troops to get Osama.

[grytpype]

19. It was a big mistake for the Repugs to raise the question of blame for 911

They really opened up a can of Whupass on themselves.

[jaysunb]

22. It's the same 35% all the time

in every poll, about any subject......

[fladonkey]

23. Bush People....

did not care one iota what the Clinton Administration had to say. Now they are paying for it. Bin Laden is probably in Pakistan.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

24. I'm beginning to think they're bots. n/t

[maseman]

27. I play a "MIGHTY WURLITZER"

and am very disturbed you used it in the same context as the repuke spin machine. Such a beautiful instrument and such a hateful group of people.

[tabasco]

28. What a great country this could be without that 36%.

They are the idiots that believe anything their masters tell them.

[underpants]

31. HA HA HA HA HA

that's 5 HA's

[Jawja]

33. Yes. I am getting really

sick of the "He said, she said: who is right?" talking point honked by corp media to muddy the waters. There is NO "he said, she said." Just the FACTS. The FACTS.

[truthisfreedom]

37. bush should be proud... that's a 17% lead! best he's done all year. 8^)

what a chump.

[Imagevision]

39. It's only common sense, imagine blaming Clinton for attacking Iraq...

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

40. Why not?

9/11 happened on *'s watch. No matter how much Karl rove and Faux news try to spin this.

[OXM]

41. A comment about the poll

Please don't be so happy with this poll. It suggests only one thing:

Rove is working hard to transform the clear blame of a failed Presidency into a question mark.
Instead of cheering the results of this poll we should be able to see the poll itself as a result of the continued attempts to manipulate truth.

[fladonkey]

42. I don't know....

if this anecdote matters much but here goes....

about a month after 9/11, I attended a luncheon in Maitland, Florida sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce. Former AG Janet Reno was the guest speaker (this was before she was an announced candidate for Governor). Anyway. she was asked some questions about 9/11 and whether Clinton was on top of things given the fact that he was also involved in the impeachment hearings. It was obvious that some of these questions were planted. Reno didn't fall for it. She said that she met with the President almost daily both at the cabinet meeting and with him individually. He constantly asked about Bin Laden and what was being done to bring him to justice or to annhilate him. No matter how much the President was involved with other issues, Bin Laden's capture was always at the forefront of every conversation. Also, don't forget Ramzi Yousef -- the architect of the 1993 WTC bombing was captured during Clinton's term.

[Beetwasher]

43. LOL!!!!! You Wish!

This clearly says the propoganda blitz is a failure.

[OXM]

49. Why is that?

Instead of thinking you just caught a Republican infiltrator think again about my comment.
What this poll says is not that Bush didn't do enough to capture Bin Laden. That's obvious from the fact that, well, Bin Laden hasn't been caught during Bush's Presidency.

Instead, this poll suggests enough people have been taught--because of the Path movie and because less than subtle hints from Fox News--to ask themselves who is guilty. This is the most Republicans can hope for, faced with the fact that Bin Laden hasn't been caught. They can't give you the head of Bin Laden, and they can't really blame the Democrats, so they go for the third option: distracting people with question marks; with the possibility of a shared blame.

[Beetwasher]

54. Too Bad For Them They Tried To Distract W/ A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION

This question "Who is responsible" is an important one and I'm glad it's being asked and I'm happy w/ the answer apparently most people have come up with.

If they meant to distract, they distracted in the worst possible direction FOR THEM. They distracted people towards the truth. This poll shows the myth of "Bush as protector" is a failure. The more notice that gets, the better.

[President Jesus]

44. Wait. Does this now mean Gallop is not 'right wing'?

[Beetwasher]

45. No

They still favor Chimpy, which makes these numbers even MORE remarkable.

[Megahurtz]

53. Not only does Bush fail to capture Bin Laden

but he purposely lets him go.
Are you kidding? Bush and Binney are buddies to the end.
I just wish Bush would STFU about capturing Bin Laden because
it's all just a bunch of shit to pacify his stupid FreepSheep.:puke:

[dpbrown]

56. In 2001, with Clinton's attack plans in hand, Bush paid the Taliban $43M!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2235310

[Megahurtz]

59. ?????????????

:wtf:

So this Idiot gives the Taliban of all people 43 million dollars of our money???

Why isn't this coming out now with all of the "Blame Clinton" rhetoric???

:wtf:

:argh:

[Eurobabe]

65. Must be that AUG 6th PDB

LMFAO! Can't think of anyone who better deserves the blame...BoyKing too busy scheming Iraq debacle to pay attention to planes as weapons. Dumb fuck.

[Anakin Skywalker]

67. Take That, Mofo CONservatives!

Bwahahahahahah!