Some thoughts from Mark Steyn:

According to a poll in May, 35 percent of Democrats believe that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. Did Rumsfeld also know? Almost certainly. That’s why he went to his office as normal that today, because he knew in advance that the plane would slice through the Pentagon but come to a halt on the far side of the photocopier. That’s how well-planned it was, unlike Iraq.

Apparently, 39 percent of Democrats still believe Bush didn’t know in advance — or, at any rate, so they said in May. But I’m confident half of them will have joined Rosie O’Donnell on the melted steely knoll before the Iowa caucuses. If Iraq is another Vietnam, 9/11 is another Kennedy assassination. Were Bali, Madrid, and London also inside jobs by the Bush Gang? If so, it’s no wonder federal spending’s out of control.

RTWT.

Yes indeed, some Democrats are delusional.

But also, look at the percentage of GOP-ers who believe Saddam and Osama bin Laden jointly launched 9/11. Delusion is a bi-partisan disorder.

Ah Bill, are you really trying to be that clueless; you're not relying on the John
Hopkins/PIPA poll are you.

Yes indeed, some Democrats are delusional.

...GOP-ers who believe Saddam and Osama bin Laden jointly launched 9/11.

On a bat scale of one to ten, the former gets nine lunar orbits and the latter just three.

Nice try at the moral equivalence argument, Bill, but it doesn't wash.

The Republicans who believe there is a direct link between Saddam, Osama, and 9-11 seem to do so passively. I believe that they acquired that notion erroneously, and it just didn't register when they have been told otherwise. It's the unexamined acceptance as fact something which isn't, much like the belief that Al Gore claimed to have "invented the internet". It's therefore amenable to correction.

Trutherism, on the other hand, is a much more active, even passionate belief. Far from being an unexamined or passive belief, truthers "research" and "reason" about the "loose change" regarding 9/11 and actively construct and extend the belief system. They don't merely take as fact things which aren't, they reject any analysis that would correct those errors, and ignore evidence which doesn't fit the scheme or contradicts parts of their belief. There is also an element of narcissism involved in trutherism (like any parapolitics), the "high" of knowing that you have access to "hidden information" that others don't or are too deluded and foolish to see for themselves, which is absent in the Saddam-Osama-9/11 connection believers.

I don't claim it's easy or even possible to argue everyone who believes there is a Saddam-Osama-9/11 connection out of their error. But it's a damn sight easier to do so than to argue a truther out of their paranoid fantasyland.

Actually, if one wonders where the war went, this makes one wonder less:

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003479.html

Unbelievable.

Bill White has repeatedly said that the US will stay in Iraq under a Dem president. I've claimed that the Dem president candidates say otherwise and asked if they're lying or wrong. White has alternated between ignoring those questions and claiming that Dem presidential candidates have not promised to withdraw from Iraq, the latter despite my posting of a cite to Obama's website where he said that he'd withdraw.

We have yet another story about Dem candidate positions on this question.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_iraq_1

Are Obama, Edwards, and Dodd lying or wrong? (That posting doesn't identify Clinton's position.)