Is "Bush deliberately let 9/11 happen" an anti-Bush statement?

[Boojatta]

(Moderators, please note that I'm not asserting the statement. I'm merely asking how we should categorize it.)

Many Republicans think that God would normally have intervened to prevent 9/11 from happening, but that God deliberately stood back and allowed 9/11 to happen. For example, maybe God was practicing tough love and wanted to punish America for some sins. Now, if we take a role normally reserved for God and substitute George W. Bush, then how can we be accused of anti-Bush bias?

If anything, we would be expressing bias in favor of Bush. Of course, there's no doubt that if most people start believing that Bush deliberately let 9/11 happen, then Bush will suffer in the opinion polls. However, this would be just one more feather in Bush's cap. For a politician, popularity is like life itself. Bush would then be making the ultimate sacrifice, allowing his own popularity to be crucified to pay for America's sins.

[TahitiNut]

1. Nope. It's a KSOTO.

(Keen Sense Of The Obvious)

[ixion]

2. 'xactly...

it's the TRUTH.

[GeorgeGist]

3. Maybe God was punishing America ...

for allowing Bush Jr. to become President.

BTW You may have noticed that 9/11 isn't over yet.

[WVRICK13]

4. Let It Happen!

I believe he was part of the plan. I believe he knew in advance and not only let it happen he had the towers rigged to collapse with internal charges. What are the odds of three buildings imploding in their footprints. The experts have a hard time making that happen and I have a harder time believing it was accidental and coincidental.

[Boojatta]

5. Kick

[Individualist]

6. No; it's a statement of fact.

[WillowTree]

7. It sure as Hell isn't a PRO-Bush statement.

[ddeclue]

8. I would say so in the same vein as RW'ers who go around saying FDR let PH 12/7 happen.

You really don't have credible proof that he DELIBERATELY (implies intent) allowed it to happen.

It's likely that his negligence allowed it to happen but it is very hard to prove intent as I found out when my friend was hauled into court by animal services because her neighbors complained about her dogs barking.

The ordinance used the word "permit" as in the owner permits the animal to make annoying or incessant noises.

Well animal services and the county attorney were unable to prove that my friend had PERMITTED the dogs to bark, merely that the dogs had barked.

I've since told her that when her dogs are outside and they bark in the future that she should always yell very loudly so that the neighbors can hear: "THEO... I do NOT permit you to bark!"

:rofl:

[Igel]

9. Precisely.

It's the attribution of ill-will and malice in the absence of sufficient evidence that there is ill-will and malice.

Unless you're willing to engage in that kind of attribution, you're not going to make the statement. If you're pro-Bush, or merely neutral, you're not going to go there.

[Boojatta]

10. Kick

[Boojatta]

11. Kick

[ZombieHorde]

12. I suspose this depends on how one feels about the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

If some people were happy about the attacks, which my TV suggested with people howling in the streets, then "Bush deliberately let 9/11 happen" is a pro-Bush statement for those people.

If some people were unhappy about the attacks, which my TV suggested with people crying in the streets, then "Bush deliberately let 9/11 happen" is a anti-Bush statement for those people.

God can replace GWB in the examples above. Some theists do claim to get mad at God.

Of course, GWB was hired to protect us, while God was not.