Hume misrepresented Fox poll to claim majority "would now support" military strike on Iran
SUMMARY: Brit Hume misrepresented the results of a Fox News poll to suggest that Americans "would now support" air strikes to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, when in fact the question added the condition "if diplomacy fails."
On the January 26 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Brit Hume misrepresented a January 24-25 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll by reporting that it shows 51 percent of Americans "would now support" air strikes to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and 46 percent would support "air strikes coupled with a ground invasion." In fact, the poll asked whether respondents would support various military actions "[i]f diplomacy fails" -- a condition that Hume omitted.
From the January 24-25 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll:
From the January 26 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: A majority of Americans, 51 percent, would now support air strikes to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, while a plurality, 46 percent, would support air strikes coupled with a ground invasion. That, according to a new Fox News poll, which shows that 56 percent of Americans think Iran poses an immediate or near-term threat to the U.S. Just 7 percent said the country is not a danger to American security.
Unless we're pulling out of Iraq we will have to strike Iran with spitballs since all our resources are tied up in a war of choice in Iraq. A fact that isn't missed by Iran I'm sure. They should have asked an additional question in that poll, should mandatory conscription be implemented to prosecute a military effort in Iran?
I foresee more taxcuts for the rich. Heaven forbid that those who support and advocate war should have to help pay for it.
This crap is nothing more than distraction from all the real issues that Republicans have right now.
If only Republicans still had the Cold War, then right now Hume would be saying the same thing about Russia that he's saying about Iran...
...he'd be telling us that there are Soviet Nuclear Subs off the coast, right now.
I am sure that if Fox took a poll, most would be willing to invade France.
Are we so lacking as a country that we are lining up to follow fearless lemming leader over yet another cliff? (I am aware about the lemming myth so don't bother).
Iran may very well be a threat, but I have a hard time believing much of what the media OR the administration are telling me and most importantly, NOT telling me about the situation.
Following Bush's election a British newspaper printed the headline: "How could 50 million Americans be so dumb?"
That question is ever more appropriate.
The most brilliant attribute of Rove is that he knows how to control some people. I believe his expertise is in mass marketing. That is what scares me most. The un-informed will drink that water (Kool-aid) because they don't know that difference. Eventually the exposure, through the courts, allthough slow, will cause the exposure of the corrupt. Sometimes I agree with my uncle, The uninformed should stay at home. That is scary but sadly the truth.
I'll bet if you talk to the average Bush voter on the street, most of them have never heard about Abramoff, Valerie Plame, or the NSA wiretap controversy. They won't have a clue how screwed up the Medicaire drug program is, or that the Bush administration deliberately lied to Congress about what it would cost. The Downing Street Memo? What? Most of them think Bush is wonderful because he loves Jeeeeezusssss, and that's all they need to know.
Can believe what they want unless the administration is willing to call up the draft -- we are a half toothless tiger. Now the moment the draft starts wait and see what happens to the Republican majority. The Iraqi miscalculation has left us in a weak position to fight off "real" threats. If Iran could actually be considered a threat at 5 - 10 years off from successfully completing this endeavour.
Obviously if we attack a country, we've committed an act of war and the country has a right to retaliate. The 3 poll questions should be: If Iran continues to develop and build its civilian nuclear program (which will give it the potential to build nuclear weapons), should we declare war on Iran? Are you willing to immediately join the military to fight the war? Are you willing to allow the government to raise taxes to pay for the war?
And if we attack Iran, the second largest Middle Eastern oil exporter, are you willing to pay another $1 or more for a gallon for fuel, because we can't expect a country that we attack to continue selling us or our allies oil?
They'll fail in the 'ol diplomacy department anyhow, whether it be by design or by sheer incompetence.
...of the question itself?
"If diplomacy fails, which of the following military actions...."
Which? No option for "none?" Not"Would you support military action etc." and "If yes, which etc." Just "which."
Because we have to prevent Iran getting nukes, of course. We just have to. And what's more, we have the right to: We get to decide who does and doesn't have nukes.
And how do we have the right? "Because Iran is a threat to us."
And just how is it a threat? "Well, it - it just is, that's all!"
More of a threat than, say, North Korea? "Yes!"
How so? "Because we don't hear about the 'threat' from North Korea day in and day out, that's how!"
We're being played for suckers again, set up for the next Great Neocon Crusade; embarrassingly, they didn't even have to alter the script. "Danger! Gonna get The Bomb! Danger!"
Admittedly, the accusation is more reasonable against Iran than it ever was against Iraq, and even though I'm not entirely convinced Iran is trying to go nuclear, it's certainly more likely than not. At the same time, we are again creating our own monster: I think the bullying from the US and now Europe is pushing Iran toward developing nuclear weapons if only to show it won't be pushed around by the West.
But getting back to the poll, my argument is that not only is the description of the results misleading, the question itself is biased in a way that would naturally increase the expressed support for military action.
As a final comment, I'll note that even in the absence of the specific option, the results indicate that a minimum of roughly 1/3 of the public is opposed to any military action against Iran.
Because they have nuclear weapons. The Bush Doctrine basically will add to the number of atomic powers as it says we'll invade you to stop your nuclear program. However, if you have nuclear weapons we are real reasonable. This is not the Cuban Missle Crisis where two superpowers duked it out. This is a bully stealing your lunch money for protection until he realizes you have a gun. It is no wonder every penny-ante Pinochet wants an nuclear device it guarantees that we will not invade you. And in a period where military action seems to be the watch word for the U.S. I'd say it has to look like money well spent -- especially if you are in the Middle East. We walked away from the UN, we have over-extended our military, and we refuse to deal with the next nuclear "new kid on the block" so we have invited this craziness. As the last superpower we have failed to lead the world into the 21st century and instead have led us into an area of increasing terror and nuclear growth.
Is to ask the question, when we do attack Iran, how willing are you to offer your children's lives to back up your answer to the first question?
I'm sure that all those who would choose force against Iran would be marching those kids down to the enlistment office. If their kids don't join up, then we'll have to re-instate the draft. This time there will be no deferments for women, college students, boils on butts or for future vice-presidents who have other priorities.
We should look to the Iran-Iraq War which lasted from 1980 to 1988. It was one of the longest conventional wars of the 20th Century. Iran used the human wave tactic on the battlefield. They are reported to have used their own children to clear minefields. Are we really that anxious to go to war with Iran. I think it's time we stopped this rush to war and consider that once you let it out of the bottle, there's no telling where it will lead.
As soon as he finishes beating the war drums over on Fox, I'm sure Brit will be leading the first wave of ground troops into Iran!
And, I'm sure Brit's sons and daughter's will be signing up to fight in a bloody war that will cost thousands of American lives!
So, go Brit go! We know you would have loved to have fought in Iraq, seeing how "necessary" it was, but you had important work to do in New York, what with all the excuse making for not finding WMD in Saddam's palaces, and all the smearing of John Kerry, a real war hero, you had to do.
Well, here's your chance! Pick up that M-16 and make America proud! And don't forget to take Fred, Bill, Sean, and the rest of the "All Stars" with you!
Brit? Why are you under your desk?
How exactly do those who "support" air strikes and invasions plan to express their "support"? Will they enlist? Encourage their sons and daughters to visit an Army recruiter? Slap a yellow ribbon magnet on their car?
Since this administration claims they don't rely on polls, and since we won't get to cast a vote on the matter of military action against Iran, what does it matter whether we "support" invasions and air strikes or not?
During the run up to the invasion of Iraq I would like to know the intelligence on Iran. Was Iran knowingly closer to a nucler weapon than Iraq. Did we know about any stockpiling of Chemical or Biological weapons? Has anyone ever asked the questions, behind closed doors or related to the public? Choice comes to mind. Will the debate be framed on Iran that was absolutely lacking on Iraq, Truth. These are scary times. Joy to the War all the boys and girls.... Iraq was a war of choice, HEELLOOO!!!!! Hopefully the next will not be... Oil rules our world, God I worry. When will they ever learn....... If you want to win a war "You have to kill so many of the enemy that they no longer want to fight" if we can not get that right we will forever be involved in more wars of choice... Maybe the administration should be required to learn the whole of history, or we will repeat it... I guess times have changed and it is our job to go out fighting monsters... Even our forefathers forbade that.... Just an ole nam vet rambling...seems Mcnamara and Wolfowitz both ended up at the world bank... chance? They have removed the publics vision and inserted their own, but the reality of collateral damge will always inflame.... If one would go back and look at the similarities, coming from the government you may understand, don't listen to the specious rhetoric, it remains the same, I wish you well... learn all you can and endeavor to change the course of the world with the only goal to make it better in a right that God may bless... Keep up the good work!
By invading the one "axis of evil" country that was not close to to developing a nuclear weapon W sent a clear message to the other two who have been working one that they had better get busy. Having a nuclear weapon may insure that the US will not invade. How I miss the days of mutually assured destruction.