There have been nine Pearl Harbor investigations, and on the foreknowledge question, the alternate form of the preventability question, after five decades of advocacy, the "FDR provoked" or "FDR knew" positions are on the fringes. So it isn't that surprising that today's Note has this:
One leading Democratic interest group recently asked a focus group in Florida to respond to a potential television ad accusing Bush of negligence in failing to stop the attacks. The result was volcanic against the ad. LINK"'They were so angry I thought they were going to turn the tables over,' said a Democratic operative who watched the session. 'It was a very polarizing ad, and it pushed people who were on the fence decidedly away from us.'"
"'They were so angry I thought they were going to turn the tables over,' said a Democratic operative who watched the session. 'It was a very polarizing ad, and it pushed people who were on the fence decidedly away from us.'"
These people are not on the fence. They are in serrious denial of the obvious and are only going to vote for Bush.
As with any cult addiction pandering to their delusion only reinfoces it. We have to get the message out more forcefully not less. Only in this way might some of them get past their denial.
Staying on message will get us the best result in this election.
Posted by: boelf at April 13, 2004 10:30 AMBut is the foreknowledge question our message?
Who cares? We got hit. Someone, somewhere, somehow, got a first strike capability organized and executed on it. That was going on three years ago. Turning just enough of the battleground states that can only be turned on course-of-war messaging seems to be a forward-looking question, about which reasonable people can differ. More battleships or more destroyers? More tech-int or more human-int? More noodles or more rice?
We differ on whether the foreknowledge question is of any positive use for regime change. As in all things, YMMV, but these are the focus group results.
Posted by: Eric at April 13, 2004 10:46 AM