O'Reilly misrepresented Fox News poll results on Bush's Iraq speeches, saying majority does not "understand Iraq conflict"
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly inaccurately quoted "a new Fox News poll [which] says 53 percent of Americans still don't understand the Iraq conflict." In fact, the poll did not address whether Americans understood the situation in Iraq, but whether recent speeches by President Bush had given them a better understanding of the situation in Iraq.
On the December 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly opened the show by inaccurately quoting "a new Fox News poll [which] says 53 percent of Americans still don't understand the Iraq conflict." In fact, the poll asked a different question: "In the past couple of weeks, [President] George W. Bush has given a series of speeches on Iraq. Do you feel that the speeches have given you a better understanding of the situation in Iraq or not?"
The poll found that 53 percent did not feel that the speeches had given them a better understanding of the conflict in Iraq; 25 percent agreed that the speeches had enhanced their understanding of the conflict; 17 percent said they did not hear the speeches; and 5 percent did not know. The poll carried a margin of error of ±3 percent. O'Reilly suggested that the 53 percent who answered "no" constituted evidence that a majority of Americans possessed a general lack of understanding about the war in Iraq. However, even though the question posed specifically referred to recent speeches given by Bush, O'Reilly failed to mention them. After citing the poll as evidence that a majority of Americans "still don't understand" the war, O'Reilly introduced his guest, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, stating, "We hope to end that [lack of understanding] tonight."
However, the poll never asked respondents whether they understood the Iraq conflict, but instead probed the efficacy of Bush's attempts to explain and defend his administration's Iraq strategy. The poll specifically referenced a series of four speeches Bush had given leading up to the December 15 Iraqi elections: a November 30 speech at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland; a December 7 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C.; a December 12 speech to the World Affairs Council in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and a December 14 speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C.
From the December 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: "The O'Reilly Factor" is on from Washington. Tonight, a new Fox News poll says 53 percent of Americans still don't understand the Iraq conflict. We hope to end that tonight. We have an exclusive interview with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
[...]
As you may know, it was a very successful election in Iraq today. Estimates are: more than 10 million people will have voted for a democratic government there -- whether you support the Iraq war or not -- that is an enormous achievement.
But it has come at a great price. American blood and treasure continue to be lost in Iraq, and a brand new Fox News poll says 53 percent of Americans still do not understand the conflict.
Of all people to educate the 53% of American people who don't understand the conflict in Iraq, Rumsfeld shoud have been the last person to invite. The guy is managing the war. What do people expect him to say? "It's going GREAT! It could be better. But we're making progress."
This is the guy didn't send in enough troops to begin with and the ones he sent didn't have adequate body armor or equipment. He failed to plan for any contingencies like the rioting and the looting (I believe his direct quotes were "Who knew?" and "Stuff happens"). And Abu Ghraib occured under his watch.
But as a member of this administration, he needs to continue to sell this war.
Aside from that, I don't think O'Reilly is too far off the mark on this one although he is twisting the poll question a bit. I also don't think many people understand the conflict in Iraq. Through some fault of their own, but not all.
The administration has never been up front as to why the war was necessary. First it was mushroom clouds and WMDs then it was Saddam's connection to 9/11. Since we discovered those reasons didn't exist, we had to have supplemental reasons like liberating the Iraqi people from a vicious dictator and the global war against terrorism.
We have since learned that the war in Iraq was a neo-con dream predating 9/11 as a grand experiment to democratize oil producing countries in the middle east. We couldn't invade a "friendly" nation like Saudi Arabia. So we had to have an enemy nation. Iraq was ripe.
But Bushies are going to believe anything the administration says. Any negative news is immediately dismissed as "Kool-Aid" of the left. And they'll whine that the librul media won't report about all the schools we're building in Iraq or some nonsense. But they'll defend torture.
Opponents of the war are going to tend to dismiss any "good news" because the price of the war in civilian and military casualties isn't worth the price of getting cheaper oil.
Democracy is a great thing. And it should be a great thing. And I hope it is a great thing for Iraq.
But the adminstration didn't tell the UN or the American people that creating a democracy was their primary reason for invading Iraq. They insisted the reason for invading Iraq was due to their violation of UN resolutions and the imminent threat Saddam allegedly posed.
The reason people don't understand the conflict is because they can't trust the administration about anything and they don't want to trust the critics of the war because they want to be proud of their country.
By only offering Rumsfeld's clearly biased opinion, O'Reilly didn't clear anything up.