Roberts selectively cited new CBS poll to falsely suggest that Americans approve of warrantless domestic surveillance
SUMMARY: CBS' John Roberts selectively cited the results of a poll to claim that Americans support President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program, but the full poll results show that the public's view of the program is more evenly divided.
On the January 26 edition of CBS' Evening News, chief White House correspondent John Roberts selectively cited the results of a January 20-25 CBS News/New York Times poll to support his assertion that "President Bush went into today's press conference" -- where he discussed his warrantless domestic surveillance program -- "with a boost." To back up that assertion, Roberts stated that the poll "found 61 percent of Americans believe the eavesdropping is meant to fight terror, and the majority support that." He later asserted, "You take a look at that poll, the majority of Americans think if it's directed at terrorism, it's the right thing to do." But Roberts did not mention poll results showing that only 46 percent of respondents approve of the warrantless surveillance when the "specific reason for the wiretapping -- to reduce the threat of terrorism -- is omitted from the question."
A reading of the entire poll indicates that, contrary to Roberts's assertion, the public's view of the warrantless surveillance program appears to be more evenly divided than he suggested. When Roberts asserted that a "majority support" the program, an onscreen graphic stated that 53 percent of respondents approved of Bush's warrantless surveillance program. The full poll document reported that when respondents were told that the purpose of the program is to "fight terrorism," 53 percent said they approved of it while 46 percent said they disapproved -- a result within the poll's four-point margin of error. (The onscreen graphic noted the margin of error, although the results document did not mention it.) The poll document itself states that "[t]he public is divided over the President's authorization of wiretaps," and -- contrary to Roberts's assertion that the poll had given Bush a "boost" -- the poll notes that "[t]he results [regarding approval for the program if its purpose is to fight terrorism] are similar to those seen nearly three weeks ago [49 percent approval; 48 percent disapproval], soon after news reports about the wiretaps appeared." Further, as the poll documents, "When the specific reason for the wiretapping -- to reduce the threat of terrorism -- is omitted from the question, the number of Americans who approve of this action drops by 7 points" to 46-percent approval, with 50-percent disapproval.
Evening News anchor Bob Schieffer suggested that the poll shows that "perhaps the Democrats are weak" in the fight against terrorism, but the poll asked no questions regarding Democrats and fighting terrorism.
From the January 26 edition of CBS' Evening News:
ROBERTS: On the NSA spying program, President Bush went into today's press conference with a boost. A new CBS News/New York Times poll found 61 percent of Americans believe the eavesdropping is meant to fight terror, and the majority support that. The president insisted again, today, he's on solid legal ground and was skeptical about increasing talk in Congress to write new laws covering the program.
BUSH [video clip]: If the attempt to write law makes this program -- is likely to expose the nature of the program, I'll resist it. Why tell the enemy what we're doing if the program is necessary to protect us from the enemy?
ROBERTS: Even if Congress were to write new laws, the larger question is: Would President Bush feel obligated to conduct the eavesdropping only under those rules? From a legal standpoint, not likely. But if Congress gives him everything he needs, political pressures may dictate that he has to. Bob?
SCHIEFFER: You know, John, it looks to me as if the president has decided to make this a political issue to show that he is strong in the fight against terrorism and perhaps the Democrats are weak. And I must say looking at that poll, he may be succeeding.
ROBERTS: A political issue and a national security issue which history would show the president does very well on. You take a look at that poll, the majority of Americans think if it's directed at terrorism, it's the right thing to do, Bob.
Last I checked, 53-46=7. So, if you take the 46% disapproval rate and add a four-point margin of error, you get 50%; three points shy of the 53% of those who approved of a surveillance program designed to monitor calls from terrorists overseas to sites here in the US. This means, of course, that the result was NOT within the poll's margin of error.
Unless I'm missing something here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks,
David Flanagan Viewpointjournal.com
I'm not at all sure what you mean here.
A four-point margin of error means that the reported poll results are within four percentage points of the "real" figures, so that e.g. when the poll says "53% said they approved of it," the actual percentage who approve is somewhere between 49% and 57% (of the entire U.S. population, or of registered voters, or whatever).
It doesn't mean -- as your subtraction seems to indicate that you're thinking -- that the percentage who approve is within four points of the percentage who disapprove.
If that's not what you mean, please clarify your point. I don't understand why else you would be adding 4 to 46 and noting that the result is less than 53.
Oh, wait -- now I see what you mean. You're saying that the 53% and the 46% are not close enough together to fall within the poll's margin of error.
Well, yes, they are, because the "53%" could really be as low as 49%, and the "46%" could really be as high as 50%. I think that's what MMFA means. (You added the margin only to the lower figure, and you should also have subtracted it from the higher figure.)
I saw that and was concerned about what John Roberts said on the news. On the CBS poll on www.cbsnews.com even that shows how bad Bush is doing on the polls. His numbers have not jumped up more than a few points since September. He's still well below 50 pct approval.
“Great Guns, Lois! Who would have thought they’d get Roberts?”
Sorry folks, but “Truth, Justice & the American Way” just got supplanted by another pod…now it’s “Un-truths, our Justice & that ‘Merikun-way Ah told ya to follow’” or else?
I can't remember an issue in which the debate was mischaracterized as often as the unauthorized wiretapping case.
Since when is there no difference between the questions "Do you disagree with wiretapping" and "Do you disagree with wiretapping without a warrant".
Warrantless wiretapping was one of the articles of impeachment brought against Nixon. The media understands that if they play this straight, Bush will have a good chance of being impeached and they are doing everything they can to protect President Gump.
Considering the fact that Roberts specifically qualified his statement to say "if it's directed at terrorism" regarding the wiretapping, I fail to see MMFA's argument that it was misinformation.
As MMFA notes: But Roberts did not mention poll results showing that only 46 percent of respondents approve of the warrantless surveillance when the "specific reason for the wiretapping -- to reduce the threat of terrorism -- is omitted from the question."
Obviously, the "reason" for the wiretapping is of critical importance. Warrantless wiretapping without a reason would logically receive a less favorable number. That's common sense, not news.
You say, "Obviously, the "reason" for the wiretapping is of critical importance. Warrantless wiretapping without a reason would logically receive a less favorable number."
RESPONSE: Exactly. And since NSA, CIA, FBI, or any OTHER wiretapping is kept strictly confidential within the Executive Branch, the question of the REASON can only be satisfied by a check ... and that CHECK is a WARRANT, as required by the Constitution.
To keep the process SECRET, and protect national security, FISA was set up to provide the required warrant, AND keep it secret. FISA is THE LAW regarding secret wiretapping, and the President is required, again a specific requirement of the Constitution, to follow the LAW.
To be sure, the LAW can be CHANGED, but until it is changed, or repealed, or ruled UnConstitutional, it is STILL IN EFFECT. Thus, the President cannot unilaterally decide which laws to follow and which can be ignored. If he IGNORES the law, he has violated his responsibility as president to "take care that the laws are followed." This is a prime IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, and Bush has already admitted to it.
He is DARING the Congress and the American People to call him on ignoring the law. If we do not impeach, then he has been assured that he, BUSH, is indeed ABOVE THE LAW, and can literally do whatever he wants. If that is the case, America has been lost, and we are no longer a nation ruled by LAW under a Constitution; we will have become a dictatorship.
Tex, I'm all for getting to the bottom of the situation as far as what the administration did regarding the legality or illegality of these warrantless wiretaps. You have concluded that this admin was acting outside the law and therefore deserve impeachment. If you are correct, I would have no problem with that conclusion.
However, others are making the argument that the admin does have the legal authority to do what they did. Powerline posted a long rebuttal to a recent NYT editorial here, and they back up their point of view by using a lot of case examples. [link to powerlineblog.com]
Perhaps they are wrong and you are right. I don't know, I'm just waiting to see how it plays out and reading the arguments from both sides. But if you can see an inherent flaw (or anyone else) in their argument I would like to get your comments. Thanks.
According to the Powerline, the President has the authority and the Constitutional right to spy on anyone and everyone in the country without any oversight or approval whatsoever?
Do you think that was the intent of the Framers? Do you think that was the intent of Congress when they created FISA and ammended it subsequently?
The Powerline may indeed be correct about the 2002 case (Although I think they were not questioning Presidential authority in this area, but took it as fact. That may not be the case under harsher scrutiny to the question.). I find the thought of that very frightening indeed. I could understand a President using this a few times in an emergency or a very sensitive issue, but it is likely he has used it hundreds or even thousands of times.
Are you okay with this? Do you think we should even pretend there is a 4th ammendment anymore if the Powerline is indeed correct?
I don't believe your first comment is correct. I believe the Powerline argument specifically referenced the gathering of international intelligence. The argument was not made to justify warrantless wiretapping across the board.
[i] . . . if you can see an inherent flaw (or anyone else) in their argument I would like to get your comments.[/i]
The main problem is that the one recent case they cite doesn't address the issue. This case simply takes for granted that the President has the inherent Constitutional authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign-intelligence purposes, and strikes down a couple of limitations a lower court had put on a FISA application. (Note: an [i]application[/i]. Nothing in this ruling comes even close to suggesting that the President didn't even need to [i]ask[/i].)
Nor, at any rate, does anyone neeed to argue that the President doesn't have [i]any[/i] inherent authority to perform warrantless electronic surveillance for certain purposes. The current issue is how far that power extends (and, not incidentally, whether the administration's surveillance really was for those purposes).
The earlier cases -- all of which, as the article notes, date from before FISA -- don't address these issues either. The reply given by the writer -- that a statute can't strip the President of inherent Constitutional authority -- isn't adequate, partly because a statute [i]can[/i] legitimately ([i]i.e.[/i], Constitutionally) place some [i]limits[/i] on the exercise of inherent authority, and partly because the earlier cases don't hold that the President has precisely [i]this[/i] authority anyway. This really is somewhat new Constitutional territory.
Of course for that reason alone, it's premature to say that the President definitely [i]did[/i] violate the law. But it's more than enough justification for an impeachment hearing.
Oh, man. I just cruised in from another discussion site that uses square-bracketed tags and I used them here as well. Duh.
Of course, I'd have caught my mistake IF IT WERE STILL POSSIBLE TO PREVIEW POSTS ON THIS "UPGRADED" SITE.
for your comments. I agree with you that hearings are warranted (pardon the pun) in this case. Thanks for sharing your expertise.
First, I preface my comment by admitting I am not a legal expert, merely a dabbler. But as I see it, there is one glaring flaw in these arguments: All the cases cited are prior to 1995.
In 1995, the FISA courts were granted the power to oversee these applications for surviellance. Precendence, as I understand it, does not apply where new laws/regulations have since been put into effect. For (dramatic) instance, no court could cite the Dred Scott ruling (affirming slavery) since new laws have since made slavery illegal.
Of course, I could be wrong. Please let me know if you've more information.
I've yet to hear anyone, either from the government or the apologist spin machine, offer an explanation as to why the NSA didn't follow the FISA guidelines, which would have in no way hampered their search for intel. They do the surveillance and retroactively obtain the warrant. Where's the problem? Seems like a workable system to me, unless you've got something to hide....
Boy, it's amazing how far this John Roberts has travelled. His name used to be JD Roberts and he was a Canadian VJ for Much Music doing the heavy metal show "Pepsi Power Hour." Now he's a gray-haired Bush puppet pretending to be American and pretending to be an objective journalist.