Why Aren’t Democrats Angry that Obama Got the Wrong Guy?

Daniel J. Flynn is the author of numerous books, including "Blue Collar Intellectuals: When the Enlightened and the Everyman Elevated America," now available from ISI Books. Read Daniel's blog at www.flynnfiles.com.


Pages: 1 2

President Barack Obama directed Navy Seals to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistan on Sunday. Do most in his political party believe that the president got the wrong guy?

When Scripps Howard asked, “How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?,” more than fifty percent of Democrats answered “very likely” or “somewhat likely” in 2006.  A May 2007 Rasmussen poll found that 35 percent of Democrats believed George W. Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. An August 2007 Zogby poll reported that 43 percent of Democrats believed that Bush either caused or allowed 9/11 to happen.

These polls were commissioned, of course, when George W. Bush was president. Since Barack Obama took the oath of office the views of the Democratic Party’s left-wing have, well, “evolved.” They are not as vocal about Guantanamo Bay, Middle Eastern wars, military tribunals, or the shadowy machinations supposedly behind 9/11. But it is worth remembering that once upon a time a substantial chunk of Democratic voters didn’t believe that Osama bin Laden was behind the terrorist attacks that felled the Twin Towers and smashed the Pentagon. For the hardcore party conspiracists, the real perpetrator was not holed up in Abbottabad, Pakistan, but in Dallas, Texas.

The Truthers have achieved a success in making the Democratic Party look like a magnet for fools. Indeed, the kooks touting various conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 are a significant portion of the Democratic electorate. Though the number of 9/11 conspiracy theorists among the foot soldiers may greatly outweigh their numbers among the commanders, the truth about Democratic Trutherism is that it could not command the support of one-third to one-half of Democratic voters without having the encouragement of a considerable number of party luminaries.

Days before the 2004 election, a coalition of leftists released the 911 Truth Statement. The document charged that “people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext to war.” Signatories included Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus author John Gray, former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, “people’s historian” Howard Zinn, Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg, “Lou Grant” actor Ed Asner, perennial presidential candidate Ralph Nader, and Rabbi Michael Lerner.

Pages: 1 2

  • Fred Dawes

    its all in the game.

  • Chezwick_mac

    My nephew, a level-headed, intelligent, successful, married-with-children, 30 year-old professional….sent out an email a couple of years ago touting the truther nonsense via a slick, seemingly patriotic video that was so full of holes it was laughable.

    Instead of shrugging it off, I took the time to watch the video twice and then documented the factual errors, the constant references to radical sources as if they were legit ("the Guardian", "Radio Pacifica", etc), the ridiculous assertions…and on and on.

    My nephew responded rather meekly that he "might have gotten carried away." Moral of the story: never over-estimate the judgment of people, even those who are seemingly every bit as intelligent as yourself.

    This is part of why I've become so cynical about the world as I've aged…STUPIDITY ABOUNDS!!! What keeps me from despair is the love of a good woman…and the faint hope that in spite of our ignorance, man intrinsically gravitates towards truth. After all, my nephew DID recant…but only after being shown the way. And showing the way is our responsibility in life.

    • PhillipGaley

      . . . . nice hit, . . .

    • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

      Nice hit!.. I have had a similar encounter with a …university professor re. the "9/11 internal job". I too watched his CD and posted a rebuffing analysis:
      http://www.resonoelusono.com/IndirectYetSolid.htm

    • sodizzy

      I think the very important point here is He listened to you!! we need to make our case.

  • 911Sceptic

    I am not an American, but I am about as far from being a democrat/socialist as you can possibly get. If I was an American I would be a very small government, constitutionalist, free market, tea party supporter, anti-abortionist, creationist, etc, etc

    However…the bottom line for me re 911 is that I am not convinced the planes brought down the towers (at just over free fall speed, despite the massive core structure in each of the towers), nor that fires caused WTC7 to drop onto its footprint at free fall speed. The collapses have all the characteristics of a controlled demolition. But if in fact the collapses were controlled/planned rather than random/unplanned, then its an inside job, end of story…

    And…there are just too many anomalies. See http://911research.wtc7.net

    • SpiritOf1683

      The anomalies are right in your head. There isn't a collective brain cell anywhere inside your cranium.

    • sodizzy

      what about the video Bin Laden made just after 9/11 saying we brought it on ourselves?

    • umustbkidding

      911 I think you are confusing 2 things.

      First let me explain something. I worked in trade tower 2 in the early 80's. When I got my job there I had to be walked thru a sort of security course. What to do if there is a fire and what to do if there is a terrorist attack and so forth. So even back in 1980 they already had terrorism on their radar.

      I don't doubt for one minute that there were charges set off on the two towers. I think that (this was not on the tour) those charges could have been there for quite some time in case of emergency. Let's face it, if there is any possibility of those babies coming down you would want to control it, not have them fall over and cause additional damage.

      Building 7. Again I don't doubt that the building was blown by our government. Simply put it was time to move. BAM. Our government saw an opportunity and took it. Why don't they come clean about it? Our government officials are what I would call pathological lier's. It's almost like they simply can't tell the truth.

      However, this does not mean that they knew about the attack before hand or had a hand in the attack it self. I've seen videos on the ideas that it was our government and I feel they were full of holes.

      Just my point of view.

    • David Roberts

      Structual engineers have explained exactly how the buildings collapsed, each floor onto the one below. Each one carrying more weight than the one before it. It is not hard to understand.

    • Amused

      You're not a sceptic ……..you're a jerk . Case closed .

    • Josie

      I agree with you. We've been had. The only way they could implement the unPatriot Act and Homeland Security was for a lot of people to die.

    • brimp

      For years I did not want to look into the outrageous claims of the '911 was an inside job' crowd because I thought they were crazy. They did not go away. So finally I looked at their theories and while I don't want to believe that some entities inside the American government had prior knowledge of the attack I see compelling evidence that that is the case. There is so much evidence that is unchallenged. Saying that the whole set of theories is crazy is not a challenge. There are hundreds of assertions of fact that stand as facts because nobody has made arguments that dispute the facts. There are also hundreds of hypotheses that are only responded to by saying they are part of a crazy theory.

      For a start, I'm hoping somebody here can respond to the fact that the Pentagon has hundreds of cameras filming it and the only images released from 9/11 were a few frames that did not show a plane hitting the Pentagon. Why haven't they released that footage if they have it? A piece of physical evidence is that a plane with a 124 foot wingspan could not disappear into a 16.5 foot hole. Another is that the two 18,000 pound steel/titanium engines disintegrated without causing damage to the building where they should have hit. There are literally hundreds of other questions that are unanswered.

  • Amused

    You bet Chez , I have an old dear freind , who seems to have lost all sense of reality . Now just substitute "birther " for "trufer" and you;ll find the same demographic amongst the Republican Party , in fact , it seens they may have caught a slight case of the trufer cough themselves . What about Alex Jones ? Idiocy is non-denominational my freind , and stupid crosses all racial , social , and religious boundaries . Just part of the human condition I guess . You still got AMERICANS who believe the moon landings were faked…..AN THEY GOT PWOOF !!

    • Chezwick_mac

      Moral equivalence, so typical of the liberal you insist you are not…

      'Birthers' believe Obama wasn't born in the USA.

      'Truthers believe the United States government attacked itself on Sept 11th, deliberately murdered 3000 Americans, employed dozens and dozens of agents to line every floor of both Twin Towers with tons and tons of explosives over a period of weeks (that nobody working there ever noticed), scrambled a military jet to shoot down flight 93 in Shanksville, and successfully covered it all up.

      I'm neither a Birther or a Truther, but at least I can distinguish between the two.

      • tanstaafl

        I, myself, feel that we should take President Obama's word that he was born in the United States. However, that also means that we should believe that President Obama's father is a British citizen……………..wait, the Constitution requires that both parents of the President and Vice-President be American citizens…………..What have I done?

        I guess I better watch "Thor" tomorrow. It's hard to dislike a superhero with a big hammer. "If I had a hammer, I'd hammer out justice, all over this land…….."

        • trickyblain

          You don't need to take his word. Look at the birth certificate. Look at the birth annoucement.

          Where in the Constitution does it state that both parents must be citizens? It does not. Your interpretation, not that of any court. Otherwise, a half dozen former presidents would never have been eligible (Jefferson, Jackson, Arthur, Wilson, Hoover). Natural born = born in the US.

          The only possible straw you have to grasp is a nativist act passed by Congress in 1790 (not part of the Constitution). It stated that the father must be born in the US. However, the Act was amended in the 1930's to include either parent. Since Obama's mother was undoubtedly a citizen, there goes that straw.

          So what have you done? Spread misinformation.

          • tanstaafl

            Actually, Obama was eligible to be a US Senator, since he only needs to be a citizen of the United States.
            However, the office of both the President and Vice-President have a different requirement. The candidate must be a native-born citizen. Unless the candidate was a citizen at the time of adoption of the Consiitution. Now why to the authors of the Constitution allow citizens at that time to become President? A large number of US citizens had parents from England at that time. This caveat allowed them to run for (and be elected to) the Presidency of the United States.

          • tanstaafl

            However, looking forward, the framers were concerned that a British citizen would marry an American and raise the child with a Loyalist viewpoint and subvert the Constitution. Hence the requirement that the President and Vice President be "native-born" with American citizens as parents.
            Has the Constitution been amended lately to change this requirement?

          • trickyblain

            Wait. What?

            I'm wondering where the Constitution says that both parents must be citizens. It does not, unless it has been amended lately. It says "natural born," not "native born" — though I don't see any distinction between the two (born here), save what birthers make up.

            The caveat was, in all likelihood, put in for one individual who was not born in the US – Alexander Hamilton. Being as how he had as much influence on its shaping as any other person (save Madison), and had ambitions on the Presidency before being outdueled, it makes sense. Has nothing to do with anyones parents, nor does the Constitution mention the word "parents," "mother" or father (unless it has been amended lately).

            So where are you seeing these parental references within the Constitution, and, since it is nowhere there, what US legal authority are you using to conclude these things?

      • Jim_C

        You're right; there's absolutely no equivalence between the very few nuts, who are not especially affiliated with any ideology, who believe 9/11 was an inside job, and the much greater number of soft-headed (but sometimes well-meaning) people, all of whom are self-styled "conservatives," who were easily bamboozled through a well-funded, high profile, concerted effort into believing Obama didn't give sufficient proof of birth. No comparison WHATSOEVER.

        • William_Z

          Since you can’t compare them, you make a ridiculous statement about the “much greater number…” of a group you disparage?  A number you can’t provide evidence on?   You’re just being silly.

          • Jim_C

            If you Google "Obama citizen poll" you'll see a number of polls, averaging between 18-30% of people who believed Barack was not born here. I don't know what more evidence you need.

            Here's one: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/07/fox-ne

          • William_Z

            Finding non-scientific polls is easy, but the real problem is with scientific polls, and that is it’s been found that many of those who are polled lie.

            Yes, there are birthers. Yes, there are 9/11 truthers, and both groups have aligned politically. Now, to go out of your way to say one group is bigger than the other is silly, because, interestingly, enough the 9/11 truthers are not just a national group —but international phenomenon. So, I can easily say 9/11 truthers outnumber birthers—by millions. Especially when large groups throughout the Middle East will be willing to say Israel was involved.

          • Jim_C

            Well, I happen to agree with you about polls. Since there really are quite a sampling of polls on the topic from a variety of sources, though, one can see a significant portion of people (at least 18%), and that made my point about the amount comparison (which you questioned).

            If we're going international, sure, you got a point. But those cats don't vote in our elections.

            I know we're beating a dead horse but I can't resist. You got Chezwick–a sensible chap after all–trying to claim a "healthy skepticism" among that significant portion of people. I submit that portion would be much less significant had the issue not been endlessly flogged and exploited in the media and by politicians. It lent it an air of legitmacy it did not deserve, bamboozling otherwise well-meaning people with the "Where there's smoke, there's fire" excuse.

          • William_Z

            Yes, there is that percentage and yes, they vote. My concerned was never the birther issue, but concern was with the fact that releasing a simple document became such a chore. Why the wait? No one has a substantive answer.

            The situation is somehow adolescent, like some 3rd rate vaudeville act, which seemed to reveal some character flaw in the president’s character, being that the release was ultimately his decision. And this is where "healthy skepticism" is applicable.

          • David Roberts

            I have always thought that Obama somehow thought by not releasing his BC and letting the debate rage on, that he could find some way to make the "birthers" look really stupid and finally gave up on that course. As we know by know, this is how vindictive he is. And we also know he likes to use "class warfare" when he can.

          • William_Z

            The release of the birth document has lead to nothing. The ‘birthers’ haven’t and probably won’t flock to support him. Again, I think they find him deceptive and the long wait for the release just cemented that.

            ‘Class warfare’ has been a tool used by the Democrats. The president is a practitioner who currently occupies the WH. But in the coming months leading up to the election, ‘class warfare’ will have less of an effect because the economic difficulties will continue to be throughout the country. Ultimately, the lack of economic well being will be seen as resting with the president and promises not kept.

        • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

          Learn! It is not about "proof of birth". It is about the officially declared dual citizenship by O's first father (British/Kenya) and by the second father (Indonesia) which is incompatible with US Natural Born Citizen requirement.

          • trickyblain

            Yet his mother was a citizen. By any standard in US law, that is enough. You are left with only a Swiss philosophy text, and nothing in to way of American legal precedence to support your desperate contentions.

          • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

            You are confusing apples with oranges… US statutes define only ordinary citizenship like §1401 of the US Code "Nationals and citizens of United States at birth".
            http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.h

            According to it, O's mother could confer US ordinary citizenship (if O were born in Hawaii), or if she were older and he was born elsewhere.

            The concept US Natural Born Citizen is a much stronger requirement: yes defined in Law of Nations, yet which was operable since then up to the Senate resolution 511 re. McCain. "Dual" Natural Born Citizenship is an OXYMORON.

          • trickyblain

            "The concept US Natural Born Citizen is a much stronger requirement: yes defined in Law of Nations, yet which was operable since then up to the Senate resolution 511 re. McCain."

            If you cannot provide a reference to the actual passage from the book concerning natural born citizens, not the general phrase "law of nations" (which was commonly used in Enlightenment texts) within the said resolution or the Constitution, your assertion is totally meaningless.

          • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

            Here is Chapter 19, §212 of "Law of Nations",
            http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.ht

            Law of Nation is mentioned in the US Constitution.

            Even more significant is the Senate Res. 511 of 2008
            http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sr1

          • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

            Mentioning of Law of Nation in the Constitution points out that it was operational glossary then and remained so for many years to come.

            The Senate resolution 511 did not mention Vattel, but it applied the definition as in law of Nations. The unambiguous continuity of the understanding of the concept Natural Born Citizen took place for 250 years including vetting McCain in 2008. Those who refer (or invent) other definitions are attempting to twist the criminal reality into some semblance of legality.

          • trickyblain

            "Mentioning of Law of Nation in the Constitution points out that it was operational glossary then and remained so for many years to come."

            No, it merely shows us that the founders were students of Roman law, which is the origin of the term "Law of Nations." Vattel was one of thousands that used the term in political writings.

            And of course you're dodging the fact that the term was not attributed to the article you claim it was, nor did you provide language from the McCain-specific resolution that remotely backs your assertions.

          • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

            The language from the McCain-specific resolution uses the plural "parents", just like in Law of Nations. From 2008 back in time everybody understood it exactly by Vattel, including Arthur, who understood necessity to hide his father's British citizenship. Judges Jay and others clarified these issues of single loyalty and parentage. It is not me dodging but you stretching in attempt to justify unjustifiable.

          • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

            Naturalization act as well as any later laws concerned ordinary citizenship and ordinary citizens only. Excluding Senate Res 511, there had been no legal hearing ever on conformity of a presidential contender to the Nat. Born Citizenship definition, and for a good reason: nobody had ever second guessed its meaning! Its meaning was spelled out in 1866, for example, by John A. Bingham, chief framer of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to the freed slaves, wrote as follows: "Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty (emphasis added) is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." (posted by "truthseeker"
            http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/02/osama-bin-lade

        • Chezwick_mac

          1) You're obviously unaware of the staggering numbers that subscribe to the 'Truther' nonsense. Some polls a few years ago came out indicating almost one third of Americans don't believe the official story.

          2) "Well-funded, high-profile, concerted efforts"…? Christ, you make it sound like an orchestrated conspiracy. Here's another – perhaps more rational – way of looking at it:

          Some people don't believe Obama was born in America. Some of THEM are media personalities like Joseph Farah. Through people like Farah, the theory has caught on – yes – particularly in conservative circles. Obama's latency in releasing his birth certificate contributed to the uncertainty.

          What you missed, friend, is the profound difference in naivety and credulity involved between being a Birther and being a Truther. The former may be misinformed about a technical issue (albeit, one with constitutional ramifications), but the latter can only believe what they believe out of either a pathological hatred for their own country or a total disconnect from reality (or both).

          • Jim_C

            "Well-funded, high-profile, concerted efforts"…? Christ, you make it sound like an orchestrated conspiracy." Not necessarily a conspiracy, but this NON-ISSUE which was resolved long ago sure was exploited by a LOT of high profile people, including many sitting republican politicians as well as candidate hopefuls. And there sure was a lot of "What the MAINSTREAM media doesn't want you to know!!!" groundless innuendo about it throughout conservative media, suggesting (a la pathetic Trump) that there was rumor of forthcoming evidence of his Kenyan borth (or whatever). That's NOT "concerted?" That's NOT "well-funded?"

            Look, I'm fully aware the majority of conservatives were fine with Obama's citizenship, but there were a significant number of people who found the birthers
            credible, when NO evidence obviated any credibility. "Obama's latency?" hello, he released it years ago–it just wasn't "enough" for some people.

            No serious person with even a pretense of credibility exploited "truther" claims for political gains.

    • "gunner"

      yep, the moon landings were faked, they sent a whole hollywood special effects crew to the moon to create the phoney landing site, using an alien space ship borrowed from area 51, everybody knows thats how it really happened don't they?

  • http://willowtown.com/promo/blogfp.htm waypasthadenough

    A major problem with demoncrats and republicrats is arrogance. Anyone refusing to play their single party game with the good guy white hat and bad guy black hat mentality is snubbed.

    Orgs. like frontpage and faux news are steam valves for repbulicrats who refuse to see the evil in their own leadership.

    And there are older 'professionals'(whatever that is supposed to prove) who still have their heads up their asses because removing it might cost them their careers, mortgages, 401Ks, etc. which shows where their real loyalties are.

    Don't understand? Start here: http://willowtown.com/promo/quotes.htm

    • MarkRich

      You know its just "too" easy to equalize things and with a broad brush paint both sides as the same. This crap started with the Cold war- when I was growing up in the mid 60's to the1980's it was the moral equivilency argument. BOTH have nuclear weapons- BOTH have nefarious intentions-blah blah blah. Its crap. The birthers are much more reasonable (though wrong) and their issue is much more benign whereas the truthers are much more malicious and much more speculative of a conspiracy which would be the equivilent of OJ being framed x 1000000 to the 10th power. -SO being specific is really the way to deal with issues. Broad brushing and attacking FPM and Fox News is weak. I am middle class with a military background and a son who has done three tours- so we are the enemy of the far left- they look at us as the problem- I get sick of Micheal Mooreites who sit at home cooking up crap.

      • Jim_C

        No one serious ever demonized the military or called them "the enemy." Those would be "nutjobs."

        Fox News/FPM demonizes liberals every day. Broad-brush style. That's their stock and trade, examples every day on this site.

        Relatively few people believe 9/11 was an inside job; and among these nuts, no real ideology beyond "unhinged conspiracy theorist."

        Many, MANY people (18-30% of the population, depending on which poll!) believed the birther nonsense–ALL "conservatives."

        If you're going to go around making arguments about "moral equivalence," use your head, first.

        • MarkRich

          Nice try. Give me exmples (specific) of Fox News and FPM "demonizing" liberals. And be specific- chapter and verse- not the easy "articles on here. SHOW where they are wrong and give specifics- such as "here is their claim- here are the facts". — Obama waited two and 1/2 years to release the damn thing and was bowing to Muslims and ignoring the term Islamic jihad and his AG and Homeland Security head were spouting rhetoric about white militias being as dangerous as the terrorists (Islamists) are. Obama could have easily dealt a death blow to all that. 9/11 truthers are bigger than your whitewah indicates and the fact is "no real ideology beyond "unhinged conspiracy theorist." -is nothing more than false- all are leftists with a few exceptions from the extreme right Alex Jones types. Keep trying as I am sure you will.

          • Jim_C

            If you want be coy about it, fine:

            Today on FPM: "Why Aren’t Democrats Angry that Obama Got the Wrong Guy?" as if democrats would somehow be mad about Osama's death

            "10 Leftists Who Need Condolences on the Death of Their Hero Osama bin Laden" as if bin Ladin were actually their hero. Also, they pick 10 huge a-holes as if they are somehow "representative."

            Fox News…Mark, please. Ever watched Hannity? Beck?

          • MarkRich

            Listen I am NOT saying there aren't liberals who aren't extreme in their thinking- there are. However- reading Flynn's article he writes
            "When Scripps Howard asked, “How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?,” more than fifty percent of Democrats answered “very likely” or “somewhat likely” in 2006." he sites a poll that gives specific examples- he does not say ALL DEMOCRATS- but that 50% think of that 50% thought that- that is astounding- he didnt pull it out of his butt. He sits individuals and their statements and pledges. NOW THE TITLE I will grant you is a little over the top- hyperbolic. –On the second article the phrase "most of the hard Left " is used.–Look at Patty Murray's statement. Look at the statements he sites and the sources- he doesn't blindly attach guilt. NOW IF YOU WANT TO COMPAIN ABOUT THE TITLES- you could have a minor-very minor point- but the substance is irrefutable.

          • Jim_C

            Appreciate the response, Mark. Talking to William Z above about the "reliability" of the polls, one has to take these claims witha grain of salt. As you know, questions can be phrased to get answers desired, so I'd love to know exactly how that 50% claim shakes out.

            I'll tell you what–my own opinion–I suspect that 50% number is quite wrong. But even if it were 15-20%, as a democrat, I'd be embarrassed.

            (However, if the question was more like "Did George Bush use 9/11 to gain traction for invading Iraq?" I'd be more inclined to agree.)(& for the record, I am decidely NOT a Bush hater).

            We all know we got some nuts in this big beautiful country of ours. No science, but I posit a 20% "lunatic fringe" that skews both left and right.

        • MarkRich

          And there are older 'professionals'(whatever that is supposed to prove) who still have their heads up their asses because removing it might cost them their careers, mortgages, 401Ks, etc. which shows where their real loyalties are. "—Who are these people with such horrible things as MORTGAGES AND 401K'S etc. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE!?
          Are they evil for having those things? I dont quite grasp your point. Forgive me for not being as sharp as you.

  • Dispozovdaburka

    Democrat or Republican presidents are just spokespersons
    for select behind the scenes groups.
    NWO

  • Jim_C

    Nice try, attempting to tar democrats with the "truther" brush. Unfortunately, no metric could ever support that the way poll after poll clearly showed how many people had been bamboozled into birtherism via a concerted effort on the part of professional bamboozlers.

    The best–and it's a stretch to equivocate the two things–but the BEST you can do is point to the liberals who thought 9/11 was used cynically by the Bush Administration to invade Iraq.

  • Matthew Quigley

    And let's not forget the Alex Jones/George Noory/Jeff Rense crowd of freakazoids. They'll probably come up with some conspiracies to fit UBL's killing…well, I'll do them a service and give them two ideas to start the ball rolling for MORE psychosis:

    1) bin Laden wasn't really killed by SEALs. It was a body double, and the double's body was dumped at sea to preclude DNA testing to prove that it wasn't bin Laden! bin Laden is actually living in a penthouse apartment in Islamabad directing al-Qaeda operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, while getting funding from Hamas and the MoBros.

    2) bin Laden actually WAS killed because he was going to squeal that 9/11 was an inside job, and in order to ease the takeover of the US by the NWO, he had to be silenced.

    If any of those conspiracies show up on "Coast-to-Coast AM" or "InfoWars" I expect proper attribution. That's Matthew Quigley, Deuteronomy, New Mexico, USA.

    • Maxie

      No Matthew, OBL was air lifted by UFO to So. America where he lives next door to Elvis. They trade recipes and sing duets of Elvis's old songs. OBL really rocks on "Blue Suede Shoes!

  • BLJ

    Anyone who believes that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job is a complete idiot and a tool. I think Rashard Mendenhall is looking for some friends.

    • Jim_C

      Never understood the appeal of Twitter to begin with. And "tweeting while famous"–how can that possibly work out well?

      • William_Z

        I don't use Twitter either. In a way, Twitter can be a faster way of getting something wrong.

    • "gunner"

      agreed, while i'm no "explosives expert" i've had some experience blowing stuff up, and wiring three major buildings, open on a 24/7 basis to all sorts of workers, janitors, security guards and others would draw notice. for the believers in the "inside job" fantasies, try watching some of the discovery/learning channel t.v. shows where a building is being prepped for controlled explosive demolition. its kind of hard to keep that amount of work secret when you're drilling holes in a structure, running wires to charge packages and knocking holes in walls. people tend to notice and talk about stuff like that.

  • RiverFred

    Naturally the Arabs spread the rumor (lie) that the Jews were behind 9-11.

  • http://apollospaeks.townhall.com ApolloSpeaks

    DESPERATE OBAMA ORDERS KILLING OF BIN LADEN

    Sometimes desperate men do desperate things to save themselves from failure and defeat. And such a man is Barack Hussein Obama. Indeed, our blundering, ill-starred, failing president faced with a faultering economy, rising deficits, a weakening dollar and turmoil in the Middle East ordered the death of Osama bin Laden as a desperate measure to save his disastrous presidency. That is the truth. Patriotism, national security, the common good had little or nothing to do with Obama's "gutsy" move. For Obama is too political, too partisan, to un-American and narcissistic for that. What Obama did on the historic night of May 1st he did mostly for himself-for his political fortunes and legacy.

    coninued

    • Dennis X

      Thats interesting because the President kicked up the search for obl when he first got into office 2 years ago. He had just kicked mclains butt in the election, it wasn't close.Just deal with the fact he got it done and your boy lil bush had given up and didn't have balls to get it done.

      • http://apollospaeks.townhall.com ApolloSpeaks

        Obama kicked up nothing. The search for bin Ladin was a seamless, on going, continous mission. Just as Obama inherited the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq from Bush, so too the search for bin Ladin.

    • Barbara

      His positive support will bump up for a short time. The financial, medi fiasco, oil drilling, etc., will bring the numbers back down.

      • http://apollospaeks.townhall.com ApolloSpeaks

        That''s already started with this photo fiasco.

  • http://apollospaeks.townhall.com ApolloSpeaks

    Did he have the tragedy of 9/11 in mind, and the deaths of 3000 Americans? No! Not the man who backed the Islamist mosque at Ground Zero; not the man who sat in a racist church for 20 years listening to the lunatic ravings of an American hating preacher who saw in 9/11 the avenging hand of God. Not the power grabbing, big government statist who hates this unjust, capitalist country to such an inordinate degree that he wants to "fundamentally and foundationally" transform it. What Obama did on May 1st was not for me and you, but for he.

    Click my name to read he rest of this piece.

    • Jim_C

      Why are so many dingbats obsessed with "secret motivations" as if they are a kinitting circle going over their favorite soap opera villain? Do a piece on that.

      • William_Z

        Airing thoughts about "secret motivations" makes for a good clash of opinion. It’s sort of similar to making unsubstantiated comments about the number of people who believe in conspiracies. Right?

        • trickyblain

          You mean like the writer of this article?

          • William_Z

            I was responding to the above comment, and not in the most serious of ways either.

          • Jim_C

            Please see my post above. The numbers bear me out.

            Just curious: do you see the "truthers" as leftists? They always struck me as "anarchists" essentially. If far leftists are worried about the "big bad corporations" and far libertarians are worried about "big gov statists," anarchists are sort of freaked about about both.

          • William_Z

            So far, it’s been my experience that truthers tend to be left of center, by variety, not just leftists. I’ve know someone who was wrapped up in the collapses of one of the buildings and how the BBC and reported, and it was like talking down a jumper.

            Truthers also included people who didn’t like Bush, not leftists, just Democrats angry over the 2000 election, and in that situation any thing which can be turned into ‘something,’ such as 9/11 is enough. But as I mentioned in the other post, truthers are international. Seeing Israel complicit in the attack was just as easy as saying Bush know and refused to stop the whole horror event.

            In short, truthers are a mix, even the MSM got into the act, helping to engerzie some of the conspiratorial ideas, as I recall.

            Now, anarchists, real ones, there are those who pose even though they don’t know it, but real anarchists, don’t need ‘events’ or conspiracies—because of all of what they hate is conspiratorial: keeping the ‘people’ down.

    • Wild Bill

      ApolloSpeaks, I agree wholeheartedly. Obama does what he does for Obama, not the country he despises.

      Dennis X, you are a typical liberal liar (pardon the redundancy: liberal=liar). Bush kept us safe for seven years after 9/11. We have become much LESS safe since the Man-child marxist took office. I can only hope that the one and only good thing Obama has done (authorize the killing of bin Laden) does not spike his poll ratings enough to get him re-elected. I'm not sure this country could survive another four years of the current regime.

      • http://apollospaeks.townhall.com ApolloSpeaks

        You won't have to worry that Obama's second greatest day in office, the first being his inaugural, will get him reelected. Already he's back to his old blundering, incompetent self making a mess of his victory.

    • Fred Dawes

      THANK YOU, Yes obama is using bin laden for political reasons and it is understood that bin laden is no longer useful to anyone, and obama understands that fact all to well.

  • Chezwick_mac

    No, it's not a "fine comparison". Both may be wrong, but the one theory is so fantastical and twisted as to beggar the imagination, the other, at least until the recent release of the certificate, was the by-product of a natural skepticism.

  • trickyblain

    "RESPONSE: a) because it would have been political suicide to do so"

    So do you disagree with this author's contention that 50 percent of Dems were truthers? It wouldn't be political suicide if that were true, would it?

    • Chezwick_mac

      I think 50% is probably high, but I believe a significant number of Democratic rank-and-file are or at least were Truthers…such was their pathological hatred of George Bush. I think the issue has died down since Obama's election.

  • Jim_C

    Agree 100% about apologists for these Islamist psychos. I have no patience for that stuff and it should be called out. But we should be careful to differentiate between those types, and the people who realize many of these Islamist movements did not just happen out of pure religious delusion; they happened PARTLY in reaction to some of our policy decisions over the last century. NOT to say "we're to blame," not even saying those decisons were necessarily wrong ones, just saying sometimes there are truths we don't like hearing.

    • Armando

      Just so you know Jim, the muslim brotherhood was founded in 1928 with the aim of establishing Sharia law in Egypt. I think that was some time before anyone was thinking of oil: the US had more than enough of its own reserves then.

  • Chezwick_mac

    As I wrote, I've never believed the Birther nonsense and have always felt it was a distraction. But I think there is a profound difference between the relative myopia of a Birther as compared to that of a Truther.

  • Chezwick_mac

    PS – The most troubling aspect of the whole Birther controversy is Obama's social security number. Whenever I confront Birthers, they hit me with that issue and I have no riposte. What is your take?

    • trickyblain

      What issue? The claim that he has 16 numbers? I think those were traced to different members of his family and folks with variant spellings of Obama. If it's a different claim, let me know, but won't be able to chat tonight — I just moved and getting Comcast to my house outside of working hours is damn near impossible, so no home internet outside of my exceedingly slow iPhone connection….have a good one!

      • Chezwick_mac

        I was referring to the Connecticut link.

  • Amused

    Chez , I' m putting tis here , so it don't get buried in replies . What are you talking about when you mention " moral equivelance " ? Again you bthick headed dullards make the same mistakes over and over again Then come your parroted " Liberal " . You're a fool Chez , and quite anignorant one at that . Trufers , Birthers , No moon landing -ers , they all share a common trait…..IRRATIONAL STUPIDITY . And you have just exposed yourself as a member of that lot . Trufers after being led by the nose to the FACTS , do the same as Birthers , IGNORE THE FACTS , and continue spouting their baseless theories . That's right baseless , because if there aint no FACTS involved they are baseless theories . You are too heaped in emotional hatred to see your common thread , but perhaps that is where the slight difference lies ….MOTIVATION . Trufers , and "fake moon landing wingnuts "are basically paranoids , whilst the birthers are haters .

  • Amused

    So …you got the Birth Certifiacte shoved up your nose , but hey , no matter , lets latch on too a phony certyificate , but contrived by the State of Hawaii ….oooops wrong again , you get smacked down again , but you get up for more , after grudgingly admitting the b.C. is real nows it's the SS number ? What nexct Chez , what else would like shoved up your nose , and is there enough room left up there ? Face it chump you deny facts , thus you deny reality , you are irrational. And by definition illogical . And what did you cite ? As the difference between Birthers and Trufers ? Did you use the word -PLAUSIBLE " …lololol….EVERYTHING is plausible with irrational people , EVERYTHING is possible witn illogical people . THOU FOOL ! . Hey Chez , dont be too hard on your nephew he no dumber than you . In fact , if he now sees his error , that makes him your superior .

  • http://www.bobzilla.tv Bobzilla

    I love how libTards go straight to the "birther" story every time. This is Obama's single great accomplishment – the killing of Osama – and still they have to go there. They've got zip for 2012 and they know it. And the one story Obama has to hang his re-election hat on will fade in a few weeks and he will sink in the polls again. Gas $$$$ way up. Unemployment way up. The deficit Waaaaaay up!

    O's gonna have to kill a lot more terrorists to win in 2012 if the domestic story keeps on its current track. And the voters won't give a hoot about the birth certificate by January 2013 and a Republican is in the White House.

    Amused, you are indeed amusing. Dumb as a stump, but amusing. Keep up the good work.

    • Fred Dawes

      U Can see the BS, BUT OBAMA IS MAKING HIS ONLY BED.

  • Amused

    It's because THATS EXACTLY WHAT YOU GUYS DO . Who are you truying to kid bobzilla ? You're a brainwashed moron , a Chatty-Cathy with a pull string , spouting a set repertoire . YOU are the ones obssessed with the Birther Lie , every time you get proven wrong , you fools attemp to recusitate it , all in a pathetic attempt to somehow prove that Obama is less American , so lets attack his birth . Obama don't need anything for 2012 , you've already exposed yourselves as a corps of Rush Limbaughs , willing to say and believe stupid things , you've got screeching scatterbrains like Palin and Bachman , who cant even remember what their previous lie was . Romney's you're only hope , even I would vote for him .But your recenjt affiliates , the Teebaggers may not allow Romney a shot .

  • Fred Dawes

    Its good to see all the devotee/supporter of our Obama so many are also loyal to the Quran ( can't use the K Any more for political reasons ).

    YES 9-11 WAS OR IS A inside job and Bush was or is a liar just like Obama and all the others and it is how you see the BS.
    I AM A DEVOTEE TO Laws and right over wrong and really Stupid acts by our monkey political people; but we all come from a common descent that means the BS World which we all come into and go out of.

  • Amused

    Well done Dawes , I guess you are TRufer as well as a Birther …..makes sense . Racist -Irrational – they go together . "monkey politial people " ? …..lol such subtlety . Thanks for supporting my conclusion Dawes . Stupid does indeed cross all boundaries and is not confined to any one political stripe .
    So Chez ,Bobzilla , give Fred a hand for such honesty , which merely comes from being comfortable enough ,amongst those whose views are similar , to express your overt racism and your utter stupidity .
    He Dawes , before you "go out " [as we all must ] why not try being a devotee to objectivity and truth ?

  • Amused

    …oh , and here is another objective observation , one does not necessarrily have to be a supporter of Obama , to reject Birther Stupidity . Just as one need not be a Bush supporter to reject the outright denial of science and reason expressedby the pathetic TRUFERs and moon landing deniers . As I said they all share a common thread – Irrational Minds .Differences being only in motive . Most birthers are racists at heart , but attempt to maintain a charade of patriotism .But all ,without exception ,have rejected logic ,rejected truth , and have put their brain up on the shelf .Thanks Dawes for providing such a fine example , and bproving my point .

  • Amused

    …lolol……and kudos to all those who clicked on thumbs up on Dawes' racist posts , thereby providing additional proof of my statements . Dawes indeed should feel comfortable to openly express his undeniable racist motives in clinging to one thread [LIE] after another . Way to go folks . Dont let the truth stand in your way . Now lets go on that SS # ! And when that crashes and burns , there's still school grades to jump on …..and the release [or not ] of the bin Laden death photos , oughta keep you guys busy right up to election day .

  • Amused

    How brilliant David !!! I take insults after first considering the source . If you can't refute or rebutt what I say , then zip it school child . oh ….and this is not name calling , but you're an ASSSShole .

    • David Roberts

      Thank you very much, your personality is showing.

      • Amused

        …and well it should , I have no problem giving a definitive description of one like yourself . ASSSShole is quite appropriate oh …and "your welcome "David , my pleasure chump

  • David Roberts

    You guess wrong….

  • Amused

    I doubt that David .

  • http://www.uggsusaclearance.com/contact_us.html uggsusaclearance.com

    Howdy very nice web site!! Guy .. Excellent .. Superb .. I will bookmark your blog and take the feeds additionally?I’m happy to search out so many helpful information right here in the post, we need work out more techniques on this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .

  • http://www.linkslondonbracelets.org.uk/ links bracelets

    obviously like your web-site however you need to check the spelling on quite a few of your posts. Several of them are rife with spelling problems and I to find it very troublesome to tell the reality nevertheless I will surely come again again.