Lambro twisted flawed polling data to suggest Americans favor remaining in Iraq
In a December 1 column, Washington Times chief political correspondent Donald Lambro twisted data from an already flawed poll to suggest that "Americans want to finish what we've started [in Iraq] and want the Iraqi government to have every chance to show they can take over their own security." Lambro mischaracterized the findings of a November 21 RT Strategies poll, apparently conflating two questions and twisting its already questionable results. In addition, New York Times columnist David Brooks cited the same poll in his December 1 column (subscription required) without noting its flaws.
The poll Lambro cited reported that 70 percent of respondents believe that Democratic senators' criticism of President Bush's Iraq war policy hurts U.S. troop morale in Iraq, while 13 percent believe it helps morale. But Lambro apparently conflated two separate polling questions to falsely claim that "70 percent" of Americans think a rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq would hurt troop morale:
We've all heard the polling questions that tell us a strong majority of Americans now think President Bush's decision to go into Iraq was mistaken. In light of the rising toll of U.S. casualties, that is an understandable view. But some polls ask a related question that suggests another view.
One poll last month by the bipartisan RT Strategies asked Americans if the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq would help or hurt troop morale. A stunning 70 percent said a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces would hurt morale over there while 14 percent said it would help.
This strongly suggests Americans want to finish what we've started and want the Iraqi government to have every chance to show they can take over their own security. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice thinks that will come "fairly soon."
In fact, the poll did not ask whether withdrawing troops from Iraq would hurt morale. The poll included a question addressing Democratic criticism of the president's Iraq policy, along with an unrelated question addressing whether the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq. The first question asked, "Thinking about the war in Iraq, when Democratic Senators criticize the President's policy on the war in Iraq, do you believe it HELPS the morale of our troops in Iraq or HURTS the morale of our troops in Iraq?"; the second asked, "And thinking about the future of our policies in Iraq, do you believe the U.S. military should ... [w]ithdraw our troops immediately, regardless of the impact ... [w]ithdraw our troops as the Iraqi government and military meet specific goals and objectives ... [or s]et a fixed publicly available timetable for withdrawal."
Lambro's distortions notwithstanding, the data from the RT poll is itself suspect. Media Matters for America has previously noted that the poll did not allow for the possibility that criticism of Bush's Iraq policy has no effect on troop morale, nor did it address the fact that -- according to a November 4-7 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll -- 57 percent of Americans now believe the president misled the public when he made the case for war in Iraq. This perception could also have a substantial effect on troop morale, an issue the pollsters ignored.
In his December 1 New York Times column, Brooks also cited the results of the RT poll, using them to support his assertion that the American public disapproves of Democrats' performance:
The hammer of disapproval has fallen hardest on the Republicans, of course, but the public is just as eager to think the worst of the Democrats. Seventy percent of Americans say Democratic criticism of the war is hurting troop morale, according to a poll by RT Strategies. Most Americans cynically believe that Democrats are leveling their attacks on the war to gain partisan advantage, while only 30 percent believe that they are genuinely trying to help U.S. efforts.
"The hammer of disapproval has fallen hardest on the Republicans, of course, but the public is just as eager to think the worst of the Democrats. Seventy percent of Americans say Democratic criticism of the war is hurting troop morale, according to a poll by RT Strategies."
And again, just because it hurts morale doesn't mean that it's the wrong thing to do. Sure, David, nobody should ever question the war under any circumstances, because the truth is not as important as morale. Does that about sum it up?
"Most Americans cynically believe that Democrats are leveling their attacks on the war to gain partisan advantage, while only 30 percent believe that they are genuinely trying to help U.S. efforts."
Why is that an either/or scenario? Can't they do both?
"The poll Lambro cited reported that 70 percent of respondents believe that Democratic senators' criticism of President Bush's Iraq war policy hurts U.S. troop morale in Iraq, while 13 percent believe it helps morale." -MMFA
Conservatives interpret this poll as an arguement against criticizing the President of the United States in a time of war. Does that mean that if John Kerry had become president, that Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, and the rest of the republican talking heads would cancel their shows? They would have to willingly do so in order to be honest because their shows could no longer be about criticizing a democrat administration until the War on Terror is over or until a republican becomes president again. Conservatives would have to interpret that Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and others are aiding and abetting the enemy by continuing to criticize John Kerry.
Our troops must have a really bad homelife if coming home would harm their morale.
I didn't realize that living in a red state sucked that much.
Well it didn't stop, nor should it have if they would have actually had something to legitimately charge him on, the war against Clinton while we were in Bosnia. But that is the consrvative mantra, "Sauce for the goose, but we (the gander) should get a pass." They should be thought of as nothing, as they are nothing.
MMFA refers to the RT Poll with the oxymoron, “flawed poll”. RT Strategies deserves big kudos for disclosing the questions, responses, and demographics. That technical necessity is a rarity among polls. For criteria for objective surveys, usually ignored, see [link to journalism.wlu.edu]
But shame on RT Strategies for their poll questions. The three are beyond the pale of responsible surveys or reporting.
1. The first question explores public opinion as to whether the anti-war Dems hurt or help our troops morale. The first problem is the absence of the response that our troops are unphased by such obvious political machinations.
Second, the question does not explore the crucial effects on the enemy. It does not ask whether anti-war Dems embolden our enemy, causing terrorists to intensify their efforts against us, or encouraging them to hold on for the US bug out, and hence, whether these Dems increase US casualties.
2. The second question asks whether anti–war Dems intend to help the US succeed in Iraq, or whether they intend to gain a political position. These are not dichotomous positions, making the question incompetent and the responses meaningless.
The opposite of helping the US succeed in Iraq is helping the US fail in Iraq. Either could be done for political advantage.
3. The third question assumes that the US has a troop withdrawal timetable. The survey asks which is preferred: (1) immediate, (2) after Iraq meets some objectives, (3) fixed and public, or (4) none of the above. This question is not objective. It is incompetent, and drawn to influence, not measure, public opinion.
Currently, the US has no timetable. The plan is to withdraw when the President decides the time is right. In no war that we won has the US withdrawn precipitously, or on an announced timetable other than the enemy’s unconditional surrender.
Some polls attempt to predict the outcome of an actual election. These at least can be validated. Otherwise, what passes for public opinion polls today are as often meaningless, or reflective of the opinion of the surveyor, as they might actually measure public opinion.