Poll: Two-thirds say Bush administration should have discussed early warnings sooner

AP ^ | 5/17/02 | CNN/USA Gallup

[Native American Female Vet]

Two-thirds of Americans in a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll say the Bush administration should have discussed earlier the information it had about a hijacking threat before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

But only a third said the news of the early warnings has made them feel less favorably toward the popular president. The poll of 598 adults conducted Thursday has an error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

[berned]

Then why do these same 2/3rds YAWN or scoff every time Tom Ridge puts out a warning based on similar UNSPECIFIC THREATS???

[~Vor~]

As Rush said earlier today in his broadcast, this poll shows the dems have accomplished nothing with their latest efforts to bring our President down....

[Wphile]

Two-thirds, 68 percent, say the Bush administration should have discussed before now the early warnings

This isn't has bad as I read it first. I thought they were saying they should have said something about the early warnings before 9/11. Rather this just says they should have disclosed this information sooner.

Even so, the whole thing makes me SICK!

[LurkedLongEnough]

The State Department issued warnings on its web site several times before 9/11, the most notable being a general terrorism alert posted on 9/7/01.

[KC_Conspirator]

And the same 2/3 that complain about waiting to get their baggage checked 2 hours before flight time...

[Wild Irish Rogue]

So, I guess from now on, the security briefings should be broadcast on national tv. I bet 68% would say that the plans for D Day should have been made public, also!!

[Recovering_Democrat]

ATTENTION:
CONGRESSIONAL
REPUBLICANS!

DO YOUR JOB AND GET ON THOSE SUNDAY TALK SHOWS AND SHOUT THE TRUTH: DICK CHENEY DID DISCLOSE THE HIJACKING THREAT ON "MEET THE PRESS" ON SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 16!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[KansasConservative]

this poll was done sometime Thursday. A lot of info has come out since then exposing the democrats for the pathetic fools that they are.

[Saundra Duffy]

What about the RAPIST? What did he know and when did he know it?

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Poll: Two-thirds say Bush administration should have discussed early warnings sooner

There was NO "warning" in the briefing.   The media and democrats are spinning ... On August 6, 2001 the president received a presidential daily briefing that was an analytic report, not a warning briefing.  It was an analytic report that talked about bin Laden's historic methods of operation from 1997-1998

[techcor]

Then why do these same 2/3rds YAWN or scoff every time Tom Ridge puts out a warning based on similar UNSPECIFIC THREATS???

I've been saying that to liberals I know, too. They scoff AFTER 9/11. They would have been total idiots about such warning before 9/11.

[RightWhale]

15 such warnings were issued before WTC911. All ignored. Most people said, "Nah, can't happen here, they would have to be crazy to attack America itself."

[Fedupwithit]

Poll: Two-thirds say Bush administration should have discussed early warnings sooner

Yeah, and these are the same people who are sick of getting announcements from the Government about "possible" threats and targets.

That absolute ignorance of people astounds me.....

[WFTR]

These are the same people who would have accused the adminstration of racism if it had issued warnings. There are things that we should have done years ago. Prior to 9/11, pilots were instructed to open the cockpit doors in a hijacking to try to establish a "rapport" with terrorists. The stupid notion that you can establish a rapport with these thugs was born out of liberalism. A good president would have asked that the policy be changed during the 90's, but we didn't have a good president then. We should also have long ago abandoned the idea that only "proper authorities" should use force to stop wrongful attacks. When the terrorists first cut a flight attendant's throat, the passengers should have beaten them into submission. The attitude that we should wait passively should have changed, but no one seems willing to champion that change.

Maybe President Bush would have eventually championed these changes, but he was elected on the promise that he wouldn't make these kinds of changes. In any case, these are long-term changes that he couldn't have made before 9/11. The notion that he is somehow responsible for the attacks is wrong.

WFTR
Bill