NY TIMES POLL: 9/11 FAMILIES BLAME CLINTON

Newsmax ^ | 8/29/04

[areafiftyone]

A New York Times poll of 9/11 victim families released on Sunday shows that more Americans who lost relatives in the worst terrorist attack in the nation's history hold President Clinton responsible rather than President Bush.

"As for assigning blame, more of those interviewed blamed former President Bill Clinton than blamed Mr. Bush for the awful human damage inflicted on American soil that day," the Times said.

The paper declined to release specific figures for the finding, based on a survey of 339 relatives of 9/11 victims, explaining, "The study differs from a scientific survey in that the total population of living relatives of 9/11 victims is unknown and therefore could not be sampled precisely or randomly."

Reacting to results of the 9/11 survey, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton defended her husband's record.

"There were ten missed opportunities [to get Osama bin Laden] in the 9/11 Commission [report]," she told ABC's "This Week." "Six of those [were in] the first eight months of the Bush administration, four of those in the eight years of the Clinton administration.

Mrs. Clinton also claimed that the 9/11 Commission had praised her husband's handling of the 1999 Millennium threat as "exemplary," though the Commission actually attributes the foiling of the Millennium bomb plot to "luck" alone.

Sen. Clinton appeared on "This Week" in her role as chief of the Democratic Party's "Truth Squad."

[shiva]

Hey! Is that red'A' in Legacy stand for A$$ ......?

[jrushing]

Sen. Clinton appeared on "This Week" in her role as chief of the Democratic Party's "Truth Squad."

That is just too funny. Hillary on a Truth Squad. Only in the mind of democrats.

[VadeRetro]

"As for assigning blame, more of those interviewed blamed former President Bill Clinton than blamed Mr. Bush for the awful human damage inflicted on American soil that day," the Times said.

Obviously, there's been a FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE, one which "the Times" will be rushing to correct.

[billhilly]

"Oh, dear! Hill will have to shut the 9/11 families up, big time."

Have them investigated Hil. It's worked for you before.

[carlo3b]

check out my web site dedicated to exposing Hillary.

YIKES, GAG, YUCK!!!! The Hilderbeast exposed, I'm afraid to look. . :)

[VadeRetro]

I can't recall another instance in which the NY Times conducted a poll, published a general statement about the outcome, but REFUSED to release the specific numbers associated with the poll. It must have really been bad for Klinton.

Trying to open up a new front for distraction against Bush, "the Times" finds the Left routed in yet another area. The DNC boys must feel like Hitler in the bunker as various fronts coalesce into a tightening ring.

[embedded_rebel]

ping

[null and void]

Ummmm. He's wearing the scarlet letter in the photo. Subtle, very subtle...

[Recovering Hermit]

"As for assigning blame, more of those interviewed blamed former President Bill Clinton than blamed Mr. Bush for the awful human damage inflicted on American soil that day," the Times said.

This makes perfect sense...but I still cannot believe the number of dumbasses that actually think that terrorists/terrorism just sprang out of the woodwork in the few months after Bush took office, and Bush "did nothing to stop it".

[Mr. Mojo]

A New York Times poll of 9/11 victim families..........

Did NY Times release the results of this poll? ......or just Newsmax?

[John Thornton]

Interestingly, the Times frequently publishes poll results on the national election with a few hundred or a thousand in the sample. I would say 339 is a valid sample to draw conclusions about the close-in relatives of the 2,800 9/11 victims.

Up until this point, the MSM acted as if the four whiny Leftist Jersey Girls were the only relatives that mattered.

[cwb]

"Reacting to results of the 9/11 survey, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton defended her husband's record. "There were ten missed opportunities [to get Osama bin Laden] in the 9/11 Commission [report]," she told ABC's "This Week." "Six of those [were in] the first eight months of the Bush administration, four of those in the eight years of the Clinton administration."

---

Hillary is being deliberately deceptive in this statement. The 9/11 Commission report lists these 10 oppurtunities as chances to detect or derail the deadly "hijackings"...or as they called it "operational oppurtunities." This had nothing to do with killing UBL. And even the commission stops short of saying the attacks should have been prevented.

When we look closer at these details, we see that Clinton's failures were failures to react to specific intel that he had in regards to Bin Laden's location. The Bush administration's so-called failures, on the other hand, were failures of the bureaucracy, weere much of the information wasn't even available to Bush.

The Bush failures included things like the "CIA's failure" to add two hijackers' names to a terrorism watchlist...or the "FBI's handling" of the August 2001 arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was accused of conspiring in the plot. The fact is, the failures that occured under Bush were failures in the system...a system that was doomed to failure precisely because of some of the very policies that were implimented under Clinton (re: Gorelick Memo).

The Clinton failures, however, were direct results of Clinton's inability to act on specific intel. Clinton shied away from ordering missile strikes on America's No. 1 enemy out of fear of killing civilians and worries about weak intelligence, the report said.

Even Bob Kerrey commented on these mistakes when he said: "We had a round in our chamber and we didn't use it."
Clinton's missed chances were:

* In December 1998, intelligence suggested bin Laden was at a location in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Missile strikes were prepared, but Clinton's advisers decided not to recommend a launch because no one had seen bin Laden for a couple of hours.

* Intelligence reports put bin Laden near a hunting camp in rural Afghanistan with princes from the United Arab Emirates in February 1999 - but Clinton policymakers worried that a strike might kill one of the princes or other officials. A CIA official called the incident "a lost opportunity to kill bin Laden before 9/11."

* Again in Kandahar, in May 1999, sources reported bin Laden's location over five nights - but there was no attack because of doubts about intelligence and the "risk of collateral damage."

In a fourth instance, in July 1999, the intelligence was too sketchy to support a strike. The revelations about U.S. inaction sparked charges at the hearings of the Sept. 11 commission, that several golden opportunities were blown to nail the world's terror mastermind.

Clinton's defense secretary, William Cohen, defended the White House. "I just don't think it was feasible," he said. Unfortunately, this report didn't even look into the accounts by Miniter, where he documents several instances in which Clinton was offered-up UBL by the Sudan. When you add these in, it is obvious that Clinton is much more responsible for the events that transpired on 9/11, despite what Hillary wants to believe.

[Belisaurius]

It'd be sort of nice if they would include Al Qaeda in that poll.

[bushfamfan]

Why did they take a poll like this to begin with? It's obvious they don't want to release it do to the answer they didn't want! If it had been Bush you can well be sure this would have been front page news 24/7.

[Howlin]

LOL ping!

[GreenHornet]

The DNC boys must feel like Hitler in the bunker as various fronts coalesce into a tightening ring.

I think that's an excellent analogy!

[Peach]

George Stephanapolous hit Her Shrillness with this today, I read somewhere. Wished I'd seen it. I thought of you right away.

[truthandlife]

BUMP

[areafiftyone]

Here is the NY Times article on the poll CLICK and the poll results are on this page of the NY Times second story on the left column CLICK. They are in pdf format.

[NYCVirago]

They wont release the outcomes!!!! WOW - must be really really bad for Klintoon.

It was interesting in that they asked all sorts of questions about Bush and Kerry, but never published who the 9/11 family members were supporting for president. They had to have asked them, given the type of questions that they did list as asking them. It must not be a good result.