Brain Fertilizer

Zogby poll: 42% of Democrats think Bush either caused 9/11 or let it happen.

The Hot Air article points out that believing Bush caused or let 9/11 happen is roughly analagous to Rethuglicans (heehee) thinking that the Clintons had Vince Foster whacked. But an assassination seems to be totally different than a massive attack; on scale if nothing else, but also the difference between murdering someone out of anger and just killing pedestrians by running them over. Does anyone think a Christian could allow the murder of 3k people, especially when any rationale estimate of casualties from a 9/11 attack would be no less than 10k deaths?

So I consulted my Flaming Lefty friend (she's not that flaming, but she Plays One on TV...meaning, she is very good at understanding other peoples' point of view) and she said:

I think it depends on (excuse me for sounding clintonesque) what your definition of "let" is. Some people come from the school of thought that if something *does* happen on your watch, you *let* it happen, otherwise it wouldn't have happened. So, I am going to assume that might be at play with a small percentage. Then there's "did he let it happen because he didn't have enough efforts directed towards Bin Laden?" and so forth.

I do believe that a significant number of people
questioned if the Bush administration turned a blind
eye to what they might have perceived to be asmall
potential attack on American soil, to prove the
necessity of going to Iraq. Am I in that percentage?
No. But these are some of the things I hear.

At the very least, I can see how a very small misunderstanding of the phrase "let it happen" can result in huge differences in responses. Just imagine the various ways "responsible" can be misinterpreted.

Sometimes our language sucks.