I'll Huff and I'll Puff...

Blogger Chris Kelly at Huffington Post wrote an asinine post about the recent Rasmussen Poll alluded to in one of my recent posts.

In his polemic, Kelly explains why he doesn’t think it’s stunning that 61% of Democrats either believe the U.S. government was, or might have been, complicit in the murder of its own people. “Let's set aside whether or not 61% of anything can be stunning,” Kelly writes [I wonder if he would find it stunning if 61% of people didn’t believe in global warming, or if 61% actually liked George Bush, etc.]. He then adds the “no opinion” vote to the “no” votes and draws the grammatically-challeged conclusion, “In other words, a made-up non-quasi-plurality of Democrats don't not not think that the president didn't see 9/11 coming.”

Cute. While it is true that the “no opinion” vote can be lumped into the “no” category, it is inconsequential. For if someone has “no opinion,” it can mean only one of three things. Either, 1) they believe it could be true (or not), they’re just unsure, 2) they don’t really care [highly doubtful since the percentage of Americans who fall under this criterion would be infinitesimal], or 3) they’re unable to express an opinion due to some inability to reason or form logical conclusions. Now, unlike Kelly’s post, which is littered with ad hominem attacks against President Bush and conservative talk radio host Michael Medved, I’m not going to assume No. 3 applies to these Democrats. So, that leaves the first two possibilities, both of which, if considered by any fair-minded person, are shocking.

The salient point here is that the people who had "no opinion," presumably witnessed the events of that fateful day either in person, on live TV, or in endless replays, and perhaps even saw footage of bin Laden admitting his group carried out the attacks, and are still willing to entertain the idea that the Bush Administration had foreknowledge and did nothing—or perhaps even assisted the attackers—which, under either scenario, would make it an accomplice to the mass murder of its own citizens. I just find that astonishing.

Kelly then makes "three" points, only one of which is even remotely relevant (see Point 2 below). My response to each of his arguments is as follows:

Point 1: While it is true that 35% doesn’t represent a “take over” of the Democrat party, it’s undeniable that a minority of radical activists (i.e. MoveOn.org, DailyKos, etc.) is having a significant influence on party leadership. These activists have been largely successful in marginalizing moderate Democrats whose views are much closer to mainstream Americans.

Point 2: Kelly makes the absurd observation that the poll question, “Did Bush know about the 9/11 attack in advance?” was ambiguous. How could the question be any more explicit? The pollster didn’t ask, “Do you think Bush knew that a terrorist attack would occur someday?” If that had been the question, then he may have a basis for argument (although the certitude of foreknowledge implied by the question would be impossible for anyone to verify).

Instead, Kelly asks if the August 6th report called “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” counts as knowing in advance of the 9/11 attacks. The short answer: NO. This conflation is a red herring. For by this logic, any president could be implicated for colluding with terrorists in the event of a future attack because of the “foreknowledge” presented in intelligence briefings everyday, which detail leads and other information related to hundreds of ongoing terrorist plots to strike on U.S. soil. This, of course, is preposterous.

The fact is the poll question was specifically about 9/11. The intent and structure of the question is unambiguous. So Kelly either doesn't know the definition of ambiguous or he is lying. In either case he comes off badly. Now, if Kelly, or anyone else for that matter, can show evidence that the intelligence community presented Bush with detailed information about the terrorists plans prior to the attacks on 9/11, including the specific date, time, method and targets, then he should present that evidence.

Shhh. Hear that? It's nearly 6 years of deafening silence on the matter.

Point 3: Another helping of ad hominem attack, which can be added to the list of snide remarks about Bush’s alleged stupidity. While we’re on the topic, how is it that so many Democrats think Bush is stupid and yet he’s able to coordinate a consipiracy, the magnitude of which the world has never seen? An administration that can’t keep leaks about wire tapping and rendition programs from the front pages of the NY Times is supposed to be able to ensure secrecy about their alleged complicity in the most horrific and notorious terrorist attacks of our lifetimes. It would be laughable if so many Democrats didn’t believe it were true.

He then throws in Point 4 for good measure, which is a crude ad hominem attack against Medved.

That Chris Kelly tries to defend the indefensible with such smugness and animosity says all I need to know about him. While I can think of a few adjectives to describe his arguments, suffice it to say that “brilliant” is not one of them.

One more thought: If the standard of "foreknowledge" about 9/11 is knowing that bin Laden wanted to attack the U.S. at some point in the future, then what is Bill Clinton's responsibility? After all, not only did he know that bin Laden was "determined to strike the U.S.," but his organization already had attacked the WTC in 1993. So, Clinton must have known ahead of time about 9/11, according to this ridiculous logic. Again I say, asinine.