Matthews falsely claimed new poll represents "first time" majority has said "we were wrong to go to Iraq"
SUMMARY: Chris Matthews falsely claimed that a recent CBS/New York Times poll indicated that "the American people for the first time, now, really have a majority view that we were wrong to go to Iraq." In fact, in seven previous CBS/New York Times polls, a majority of respondents have said the United States "should have stayed out" of Iraq.
On the May 10 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews falsely claimed that a recent CBS/New York Times poll indicated that "the American people for the first time, now, really have a majority view that we were wrong to go to Iraq." In fact, in seven previous CBS/New York Times polls, a majority of respondents have said the United States "should have stayed out" of Iraq.
Matthews made his false claim during an interview with Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS).
The May 4-8 CBS/New York Times poll that Matthews cited found that 56 percent of respondents thought the United States "should have stay out" of Iraq, compared with 39 percent who said the United States "did the right thing" in taking military action. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.
While this is the largest such majority to date, it is not the first. The previous high, in October 2005, was 55 percent. The following CBS/New York Times polls -- all of which asked, "Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?" -- found that a majority of respondents believed the United States should not have invaded:
|
Date |
"Did the right thing" |
"Should have stayed out" |
Unsure |
|
May 4-8 |
39% |
56% |
5% |
|
April 28-30 |
44% |
51% |
5% |
|
April 6-9 |
43% |
53% |
4% |
|
March 9-12 |
41% |
54% |
5% |
|
February 22-26 |
41% |
54% |
5% |
|
October 3-5, 2005 |
41% |
55% |
4% |
|
June 10-15, 2005 |
45% |
51% |
4% |
|
July 11-15, 2004 |
45% |
51% |
4% |
From the May 10 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: And tonight, Washington wonders, with the president's second term now in deep water, how long can he go? How low can his polls go? A CBS/New York Times poll shows the president's approval rating now has hit a new low of 31 percent. Only 29 percent approve of the president's handling of the war in Iraq. And a solid majority think we never should have gone there.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Senator Durbin, the American people for the first time, now, really have a majority view that we were wrong to go to Iraq. They don't believe in the president's decision, made sometime in 2001 or 2002, to invade in 2003. Are you -- you are now -- are you still where you were back then? You don't think the president should have gone to war in Iraq the way he did?
DURBIN: There were 23 of us who voted no, one Republican and 22 Democrats, and I was in their ranks. I still feel the same today.
Is it my imagination, or is this the first time that Tweety has appeared in MMFA in at least a week?? I have noticed lately that he has become more and more "testy" towards Republicans.
I guess he has been watching Olbermann lately to see how to do a show on MSNBC!!!
becoming harder and harder to ignore the numbers shown in the polls.
What about this very small sentence of Matthews: ' They don't believe in the president's decision, made sometime in 2001 or 2002, to invade in 2003'. Here he acknowledges something that has been lied on for years: that the will of this administration to invade Iraq was already there BEFORE 2003!
I'm not sure why these guys (like Mathews) are now coming out and stating the obvious... the cheerleading for this administration has dwindled. Still (as you point out) -- his words are chosen carefully, not to offend any potential GOP goons lurking about.
Why doesn't someone have the cajones to call out this sham of a presidency? There's been much speculation on this site (GOP bullying, fear of info 'lockout', corporate gladhanding, etc). I still don't understand. This administration is the WORST we've seen -- a complete trainwreck. Yet, everyone tip-toes around poor Bush and his cadre of criminals.
Is that Karl Rove has written substantial checks to key media figures (taxpayer money, of course) or he has pictures of them doing unspeakable things with a goat. Either one is possible.
I've thought the same... it seems ALL the members of the Bush cadre are ill-informed, ill-equipped cronies... who all prob have a lot of dirt they'd like to keep secret. Makes for a tight, if not entirely incompetent, ship...
If there is one thing this website has taught us, it's the subtle ways you can redirect opinion if you have a bias. I wouldn't want to see the focus studies, conducted by these corporate media suits, that tell shills like Chris and the others how to couch bad news for BushieCo. It's just NEVER all that bad for him, despite numbers to the contrary.
I wonder what is he going to do when the Republicans and specifically his boyfriend GW is gone? Hopefully they will be sent back to radio and Fox TV where they can rant and rave, which appears to be what they do best. They had 12 years to govern and look at what they did. So it's time to get out of the way and let the professional lawmakers and government administrators do it. You know I think it was Al Franken that said - how can you govern effectively when you don't believe in government? So instead of ensuring that the needs of WE THE PEOPLE were addressed they turned the congress into a place for wheeling and dealing for their own profit, gave rewards to their friends and handed us the bill for it, and passed their pet wing nut projects that had low or no priority for the vast majority of Americans. I feel like it's almost over now. BTW how low can this number go? Bush job approval falls to 29 pct in new poll. <[link to news.yahoo.com]
is that once the dems have some power again that within a few months they are back pre-1994.
BTW where is Holly?
I think 1994 and 1996 has taught them a hard damn lesson and I for one am not going to cut them any slack. Nevertheless, I truly believe the Democratic excesses of the past will be gone. Some left the party because of those excesses and we’ve got to get them back (JETER COME BACK) The Dems got a little carried away with spending, but I think Clinton, Mark Warner, and the like are the new Democratic prototypes. They combine core progressive principles with fiscal responsibility. When they assume leadership again I don’t want to see a repeat of what The Republican legislatures did to them. I don’t want to see any of that blatant disrespect the Republicans showed them. It’s time to move on and get back to real governing, and REIGN in Bush, because this Republican congress will not. Although I think Bush deserves to be impeached we don’t have the luxury to do that, there is too much to be done. I just want them to stop him, although I do want to see investigations. The findings should be recorded for the historical record and maybe a censure given.
P.S
I don't know what happened to Holly; hopefully she and the other ladies will be back. It's lonely here being the only girl.
And Sagra as well. Her posts are very witty and right on target.
Sagra's funny, she could be a comedy writer.
It's going to be an interesting run-up to the election. Like Peet, I'm amazed that this inept, corrupt disaster of an administration hasn't collapsed under it's own weight, but we may get to see it yet. All the numbers seem to suggest that Americans are finally starting to connect the dots and realize the magnitude of the mess we're in. The wheels of the spin machine are starting to grind and squeal under the load. Many politicians have begun distancing themselves from the royal court for self preservation, but may find themselves thrown out anyway. Can the bloviating pundits be far behind? I worry that this gang of bunglers has a few more malicious surprises for US before they assume their rightful place in the darkest chapter in our country's history.
I think they have a number of possibilities lined up to use before the election. The most likely, in my opinion, is that they'll start a war with Iran two weeks before election day. After all, we must let the "War President" have a Congress he can work with, don't we? How can he keep us safe if he's being impeached?
Chris wants to be a hero of the Idiot Class when the dust settles. He knows that the rightwingers only listen to themselves, so from their perspective, HE'S the first one to doubt dubya. He wants them to look back and say "Whew! That was a close one. Thank goodness that Chris told us that this man was pulling the wool over our eyes!"
I bet all these morons will start to diss bushco at the end of the administration, because they know that they'll be nobodys again once it's over unless they jump ship.
Maybe Matthews is talking about a Super Majority or a Super Duper Majority.
Even though I really dislike matthews, there's a chance, a small chance, that by his reckoning this is the first time that a poll has shown a diffinitive majority, as opposed to a majority that could be reversed by the margin of error.
I think only John Gibson uses that term!
Such broad strokes the media paints with, in characterizing the American People's opinion on Iraq:
"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"
1. Did the right thing
2. Should have stayed out
3. Unsure
In the above question, I've highlighted the part that is "do you think the United States did the right thing" to point out that any question whatsoever, phrased like that, is going to get many who will respond a resounding:
"Yes! I think the United States did the right thing. Hell yes! What, you think I don't support and stand by the United States? Why, I oughta punch you in the face for even implying that I..."
Again, to any question whatsoever, phrased like that.
But among those who answered "Should have stayed out" (which is what the majority of those polled answered), I'm sure they would have more to say on the matter than just that short (inarticulated and grammatically incomplete) sentence; either because they just naturally want to be better understood on the matter, or because they see the guy next to them, who answered "Did the right thing", suddenly acting like he wants to punch them in the face.
And for whatever reason, the matter deserves a little more than a single brief and inarticulate phrase in order to be better understood; such as the follow-up question of:
"Why do you think the United States should not have taken military action against Iraq?"
And among those Americans (again, a majority) who would be asked such a follow-up question, you would no doubt get answers such as:
"Because We the American People were misled about Iraq; because all of the 'pre-invasion intelligence' was either FALSE or FALSIFIED."
"Because the president has siphoned off more than $300 billion dollars from the U.S. Treasury so far for Iraq, and all for the profit of his most dearly held supporters: Defense Contractors and the Oil Industry."
"Because 2,436 [link to icasualties.org] of our Sons and Daughters in the U.S. Armed Forces have been killed in Iraq so far, all in the name of the administration's lies and greed."
And you better believe the media paints the matter in such broad strokes, and doesn't include such follow-up questions and the answers they'd get, in their characterizations of the American People's opinion on Iraq.
And for good reason; because if they did, then what would ensue would be something more akin to a dialogue, than to the trade and barter of single, brief, and inarticulated phrases.
And you know why they don't want that? Because that other guy, the one who answered "Did the right thing" (the one making the fist), he might listen; he might think about what's being said (he might unclench his fist); he might get involved in the dialogue, he might say (he might!):
"You know, I hadn't thought about that; about the FALSE or FALSIFIED 'pre-invasion intelligence' and about the greed of Defense Contractors and the Oil Industry... and about all of our Sons and Daughters being killed in Iraq for those lies and that greed..."
"You know (the guy might say), I think you're right; I think that taking military action against Iraq...
WAS NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO!"
You better believe the media paints the matter in such broad strokes; because if they did not, then what would ensue would be something more akin to a dialogue, than to the trade and barter of single, brief, and inarticulated phrases.
And for mighty Evil reasons they don't want that to happen; for the lies and the greed and the death that Iraq has become; for a thing that they love and hold so dear.
DURBIN: There were 23 of us who voted no, one Republican and 22 Democrats, and I was in their ranks. I still feel the same today.
I'm very happy, and thankful, to see the item conclude with Mr. Durbin's comment.
We're too often absorbed in the misinformation and the lies; we echo them too much, and perhaps give them a strength they otherwise could not muster.
Do you know what I mean?
Anyway, I find Mr. Durbin's comment much more worthy of reflection (and echo) and highlight, than anything the other guy said.
And not only would I have happily (and thankfully) seen this item headlined:
"23 U.S. Senators never went along with the lies and the greed and the death of the Iraq invasion, not from day one; and Mr. Durbin was in their ranks, and still is today."
(Which is little more than a bolder echoing of what it was he said, and that appeared above, in unbold type.)
To which I would add (for anyone who likes such information):
"In addition to Mr. Durbin voting against the Iraq invasion from day one, we have also Mr. Akaka, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Reed (all fine Democrats in the Senate, who do not find themselves in the uneasy "back-tracking" or "flip-flopping" or "made a mistake" position, due to their foresight and conviction; and because of that they deserve positions of leadership in that party today, as opposed to those others who presently fumble about, trying to rationalize how it is they were for the thing before they were against it); we also have Mr. Chafee (R-RI) and Mr. Jeffords (I-VT) against the invasion of Iraq from day one (fine Senators also, despite their proclaimed affiliations, or non-affiliation).
We have also 133 members of the U.S. House of Representatives against the invasion of Iraq from day one (they too are spared the uneasiness of rationalizing how they could be for the thing before they were against it; they too should be leading their party today), and among them are Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Bonior, Mr. Conyers, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Lewis, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Miller, Mr. Moran, Mr. Obey, and Mr. Rangel, just to mention 11 of the 133 members of the House who were against the lies and greed and death of the Iraq invasion, from day one."
That's what I'd add to Mr. Durbin's comment that concludes the item; that's what I'd echo (and crow) to conclude my post.
Ultimately, the question I would like answered when logic and reason (not to mention compassion) retakes both houses of Congress:
Will the people responsible for the war crimes, profiteering, and general evil of which they are most certainly guilty be held to task (or better yet, face prosecution) for what they have done?
Or will they get a slap on the wrist (or nothing), and escape this disastrous administration with the boatloads of cash they have stolen from the national treasury and the American people, and live out the rest of their lives in pamper and luxury, while the good people of America (and many of our veterans) have to scrape by to make ends meet?
I hope for the former, but expect the latter.