Rolling Stone article

[delphi_ote]

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

 

[JLam]

From the article:

There's not a whole lot of difference, psychologically, between Sean Hannity's followers believing liberals to be the same as terrorists, and 9/11 Truthers believing even the lowest soldier or rank-and-file FAA or NORAD official to be a cold-blooded mass murderer. In both cases you have to be far gone enough into your private world of silly tribal bull**** that the concept of "your fellow citizen" has ceased to have any meaning whatsoever. It may be that America has become too big and complicated for most people to deal with being part of. People are longing for a smaller, stupider reality. Some, like Bush, sell a prepackaged version. Others just make theirs up out of thin air. God help us.

Amen...'cept for the God part.

 

[Dog Town]

Bwahahaha!

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Oliver - TAM beat me to point 1, but it should be re-emphasized. By lumping MIHOP and LIHOP together you get a whole lot of possibilities under LIHOP. Many people, reading through all the information/disinformation pick up on their own bugbear. If, for instance, they just plain don't like Bush, would they be willing to surmise that he should've read the intelligence reports, and should've known that something bad would happen, and could've done something to prevent it. Add that to the question, and "uh, yeah, I can say that he let it happen so as to have an excuse to get even with Saddam for embarassing his daddy", so I'll check the box that says, "Somewhat likely".

Point 2. Not applicable on this poll, but in case you get confusing claims from various sources, you have to not only seek out the wording of the question, but also learn to simply not trust certain polling organizations. Scripps is usually safe, but someone like Zogby lets people sponsor polls and the wording of the question can guarantee the results. One group wants to impeach Bush, so they posited the question: If he did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, should he be impeached?

The organization in question downplays the "if he did not tell the truth" part, but trumpets the fact that 53% of the country supports impeachment. I think if they just asked the public if they support their own organizational goal and worded it accordingly, they might get a decidedly different result. Zogby also ran a poll for one of the troofer groups sometime back, and the wording came out with something like 80% of the country not believing in the gov't version of the story (or something like that).

 

[Bell]

How about such a poll?

Did 19 Moslim extremists, sponsored by OBL, hijack 4 planes and crash them into buildings and into the ground?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No