Scarborough misrepresented Iraq poll
SUMMARY: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough misleadingly described the results of a USA Today/Gallup poll, declaring four times that the poll showed that "69 percent of Americans now believe America can win the war in Iraq." But included in the 69 percent that Scarborough cited were 21 percent of respondents who believed that the United States "can win the war in Iraq" but "don't think it will win."
On the June 13 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, host Joe Scarborough misleadingly described the results of a USA Today/Gallup poll, which asked whether respondents believe that the U.S. can still win the Iraq war. Scarborough declared four times that the poll showed "69 percent of Americans now believe America can win the war in Iraq," a figure he referred to as "staggering," "shocking" and one "I can't get my arms around." But included in the 69 percent Scarborough cited were 21 percent of respondents who believed that the United States "can win the war in Iraq" but "don't think it will win." In fact, the number of poll respondents who believed that the United States definitely or probably will win in Iraq was equal to the number of people who believed that the U.S. cannot or probably won't win.
The USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted June 9-11, asked: "Which comes closer to your view about the war in Iraq? You think the U.S. will definitely win the war in Iraq. You think the U.S. will probably win the war in Iraq. You think the U.S. can win the war in Iraq, but you don't think it will win. Or, you do not think the U.S. can win the war in Iraq?" The poll found that Americans were split, with 48 percent of respondents stating that the United States would either "definitely win" (19 percent) or "probably win" (29 percent) and 48 percent stating that the United States "can win," but probably won't (21 percent) or "cannot win," (27 percent). Four percent said they were "unsure."
As Media Matters for America has noted, Scarborough has previously misrepresented poll results. For instance, on the May 24, 2005, edition of Scarborough Country, Scarborough misrepresented a public-opinion poll to suggest public support for conservatives' efforts to eliminate Senate Democrats' ability to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees. Additionally, during MSNBC's coverage of the vice-presidential debate on the October 6, 2004, Scarborough claimed that Americans who had indicated in an MSNBC online poll that then-Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) defeated Vice President Dick Cheney in the vice presidential debate had been "drinking vodka." Then, apparently after silently reading the results of a CBS poll that also showed that Edwards had won, Scarborough crumpled up the paper showing the results and threw it away, stating: "since it's CBS, we're not going to give you the results." He did, however, report the results of an ABC poll that showed Cheney as the victor.
From the June 13 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:
SCARBOROUGH: Two 500-pound bombs, a terrorist's death, and much more lifts Bush's poll numbers. Is it a short-lived lift, though? And why do 69 percent of Americans now believe America can win the war in Iraq?
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: And a staggering -- at least, staggering to me -- a staggering 69 percent of Americans now say that we can still win the war in Iraq. What a difference a corpse makes, especially when that corpse is the most wanted terrorist in Iraq.
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: A new USA Today/Gallup poll shows the president's approval rating at 38 percent, still modest, but up seven points in the last month. And then there's this shocking number: 69 percent of Americans now say America can win the war in Iraq -- 69 percent! That's up almost 10 percentage points since April.
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: The number I can't, I can't get my arms around is this number now that 69 percent of Americans think we can win the war in Iraq. We've had years of bleak news, and yet today again, God, over two out of three Americans think this war is winnable. That's certainly good news for the president and bad news for Democrats, isn't it?
All things considered, what series of events will give us the bragging rights to claim that we won the war? If bringing home the troops--all the troops--is a major part of the equation--and it must be, that's never, ever going to happen. If the administration had even the slightest desire to bring home the troops, we wouldn't be building 12 military bases and a billion-dollar embassy that looks like the Vatican. We're there to stay.
How will we know when we've won? I mean, what specific event or set of conditions will signal that the war is over and we won? We're not at war with a nation. There won't be a formal surrender.
We defeated the Iraqi army in about ten minutes back in 2003. We've "regime-changed" Saddam, and there's an elected Iraqi government. What's to stop us from declaring victory right now?
...and I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I almost believe instability in the region was their goal. Why else would they not send even close to the number of troops the top generals were recommending? They went so far as running Generals like Shinseki out of the military for being too vocal in advocating more troops.
Why else maintain a strategy of "stay the course" with no real end in sight? They had no clear strategy for the conflict to end, not enough troops to truly bring stability, took forever to train Iraqi security forces, disbanded the Iraqi Army, etc.
Then you have to ask yourself, what would they gain from maintaining instability in Iraq and the Middle East as a whole? Well, oil prices are at record highs, and the Bush family has obvious interests and connections in the oil industry. They take out a threat to Saudi Arabia, whose royal family the Bush family is very close to. They remove a threat to Israel, which makes the Israeli lobby happy. We "project our power" in the region as the PNAC wanted. You also give no bid contracts for reconstruction which enriches a lot of Bush's cronies, and look the other way as billions of taxpayer's dollars go missing (yeah right).
The mistakes in Iraq could have all been a case of incompetence at multiple levels, but sometimes you have to wonder. This is a group which has displayed a high level of corruption and underhandedness, and I wouldn't put it past them to want to maintain instability in the Middle East.
Also, if these things were happening due to error and mistakes, why would Bush keep Donald Rumsfeld as his Defense Secretary? He has replaced other officials for their mistakes or failures, from CIA Directors, Treasury Secretaries, his Chief of Staff, FEMA Directors, to Press Secretaries. Bush even kicked Karl Rove out as his top policy advisor once his poll numbers hit all time lows.
So if Rumsfeld is making mistakes, and not instead working on a calculated plan, why keep him in his position? Seven retired generals went to the press to call on him to resign, and Rumsfeld has critics on both sides of the political aisle, yet Bush still keeps him.
Who is it besides the administration (and their many media hacks) who discusses such a serious matter in such simple (even childish) terms...
"Who's going to win..."
As though you were talking about the World Series, or the NBA Finals.
The criteria for "winning" the World Series or the NBA Finals is to first qualify for the play-offs, and then to outscore your first series opponent in three out of five possible games, and then to outscore each successive series opponent in four out of seven games, and the one to win the last series (the World Series, or the NBA Finals) wins the Championship!
What's the criteria for the simply-phrased (even childishly-phrased) "winning the war in Iraq"?
The above-poster points out what everybody already knows:
The United States Armed Forces (compelled to Iraq under a fictitious WMD threat) not only verified the non-existence of those WMDs (leaving us to wonder why we were led to believe they were there in the first place), but those same U.S. Armed Forces also toppled the "regime" and captured and/or killed the legacy to it (or would some prefer we killed everybody in the danged place?), and they also stayed well past the National Elections of 12-15-2005 (near 8 months ago!) to provide as much internal security to that nation as they could...
...and the U.S. Forces have done all this at what now amounts to the deaths of more than 2,500 of their own...
...and so their job is done (what more can they do?); their Homecoming is longed for by the majority of the American People (I think it may be longed for by those U.S. Troops too).
Again, what more can they do?
Well, the answer to the question of what more can U.S. Troops do in Iraq (given today by House Republicans) is simply this:
THE IMPOSSIBLE!
From todays ridiculous H.Res. 861:
Whereas the mission of the United States ...is to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors
(This is a thing only the Iraqi people can do, and have never done, ever; "at peace with its neighbors"? This is now the work of our Sons and Daughters in Iraq, to make that IMPOSSIBLE thing happen? A thing so remote from their training and their true mission always, to make Our Nation Secure?)
Resolved, That the House of Representatives
(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;
(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq
"...the national security interest of the United States"?
A rather easy thing to say, but a lot harder to explain; where is the requisite explanation for how an invasion and occupation of Iraq serves "the national security of the United States"?
Easy to say; IMPOSSIBLE to explain.
"...an arbitrary date for withdrawal or redeployment"?
Not one responsible American Person wants an "arbitrary date for withdrawal or redeployment".
We want a Strategic Date for troop redeployment, not an "arbitrary date"; what a ridiculous and intelligence-insulting term to use, "arbitrary date".
"...the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq"?
Perhaps so; but the job of the United States Armed Forces is done.
What more would you have them do? "create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq"?
That could never be the job of the U.S. Armed Forces (were it even possible); that could only be the job of the Iraqi people; which is a thing they have never done (and show no popular consensus in doing now), and so I would think such a thing IMPOSSIBLE...
...and I would say that the U.S. Armed Forces have done their job in Iraq, at a cost of more than 2,500 of their own (of Our Sons and Daughters), and they need to come home (their Homecoming is overdue), and not "arbitrarily", but Strategically.
Just what more do House Republicans want the U.S. Armed Forces to do?
THE IMPOSSIBLE?
Or do they simply prefer to kill everybody in the danged place?
Why would anyone think that our intervention, and even our best intentions, could bring the Sunni and Shia together in peace? Their hatred goes back for hundreds of years. I think it would be great if that were to happen, but I just don't see it coming about because of anything we're doing there.
This whole situation seems to be crying out for compromise. But every faction involved is an absolutist, especially the leaders of our country. The waring factions are divided by religious beliefs and I don't really see them coming to an understanding. People who believe that God is on their side will never compromise. Anyone who believes that God favors their side as they kill and are killed, is a fool.
That is an excellent post, and I think you are correct.
The answer to your question is: an appointed president's bull headedness goal of staying the course!
I am an Eagles fan. I think most Eagles fans will say that they Can win the Superbowl. I also think most Eagles fans believe the Eagles will not win the superbowl. See my point?
i know this might be like shooting myself in the foot, but i heard a very throught-provoking theory from a very conservative columnist who i respect very much because he doesn't spin anything and he claims the following. i wanted to get your reaction. he says that this whole bush invasion of iraq is something of a psycho-drama. he maintains that bush jr. wanted to do something his father never could do - that was get rid of sadaam and get re-elected. he maintains that bush jr. failed at nearly everything prior, in business, at school, all the important things in his father's eyes. so he set out to prove he could accomplish what bush sr. could not. i am not sure bush jr. is that calculating or if i find any sense of his theory. what do you people think?
It is certainly more plausible than any official reason given by the administration. This is not a new theory, however. It's been floating around the Liberal blogosphere and talk radio for at least a year or more.
The best theory I've heard is that the NeoCons talked Puddinhead George into doing this to establish a U.S. presence in the Middle East so that we could telegraph our power to that region and protect the oil supply and Israel at the same time.
i had never heard it before. the whole iraq thing has my head spinning, from one day to the next.
I think that was the intentions of the neocons that latched on to what they felt was an electable candidate. The behind the scenes neo-con bunch are kind of scary and their off putting, but did Bush really buy into the ideology or was for the reasons stated in Right On's post. We'll never know for sure. I do know this he was hell bent on going into Iraq.
We know of the NeoCons' plans which were documented by the PNAC boys. I am convinced that Bush is a puppet president, and I doubt that he has made a major decision since taking office. I think it quite possible that his obsession with Iraq came from his relationship with his father, and wanting to complete what Bush Sr. started in the first Gulf War. Given this inclination, the NeoCons found him easy to manipulate, especially after 9/11.
One thing of which I am thouroughly convinced is that NO ONE in the administration's inner circle, except maybe Bush himself, believed any of the crap they were peddling in the months leading up to the invasion.
as to his constant failures, this may not be the result of 'calculation' since on his part, as simply the destructive antics of someone with way too much money in a political family seeking to 'prove' something.
Are you trying to set us up for some kind of punch-line? This is a gag, correct?
why do you think that? it was a reputable conservative columnist who used to be a republican congressman from new york - a reagan republican. what gag?
not picking, but would you have even consider this possibility if it had been put forth by a reputable Progressive columnist?
The only reason I thought it was a joke or a setup is because that's been discussed before in progressive circles and a lot of conservatives called the liberals all kinds of things for even thinking anything like that. To be serious, you could be right.
...from lefties as well. It does seem to fit his line of "smoke 'em out" thinking. Maybe that's how the neocons sold this plan to Bush? As was stated above, nothing would surprise me at this point.
Posited by several lefty columnists. I think it is part of the dynamic just from my own personal opinion. I also think people arent just one thing and no single answer is going to be THE answer. Certainly the imperialist aspect of the regions oil and permanent bases. The neocon wetdream about a reverse domino theory, and wanting to be a war president all had a bearing on Bush's decision. What I am sure of is Bush wanted to go into Iraq from day one of being president and wanting to one up his dad is probably part of the motivation.
I agree with Solon, Right On. I think the dynamic you described is part, maybe even a very important part, of the whole picture, but not necessarily the whole picture.
Bush would have had to run in 2004 on the Economy, Healthcare, Social Security, Employment, Wages, etc., and He could never have won. A detailed analysis after the Election gave Bush a 7-9% advantage due to the Fear of War. Guess what, the 2006 Elections will be decided on the "Ongoing" Threat of War. War is good for Elections, until they are lost. By that time it will be too late for Bush and America!
was elected in 1968 by being Pro-Vietnam War, after Johnson refused to Run because of his feelings on the War. As bad as the War was in Vietnam, Nixon used it again to win re-election in 1972. History proves that the Republicans know how to use a War to win Elections.
Did Scarborough lie? he did say 69% even though the 69% includes the people who said we can win the war but dont think we will.
but that is my view on many of these posts. In MMFAs view, he should have pointed out that the 69% includes many that do not think we will win. It is cut and dried and unfortunately it is filler when the focus could be on actual lies.
This is called Observational Selection or a Lie of Omission.
He is using data that phrased one way seems to support his point but when you look at the whole set of data - doesn't.
"over two out of three Americans think this war is winnable. That's certainly good news for the president and bad news for Democrats, isn't it"
The first part of this quote is wrong according to the poll. Only 51% of the respondents think the war is winnable. In fact, the data he combined in ('can but wont win') is quite damning of Bush. 21% think we are capable of winning, but we won't be able to. I think that stat speaks "highly" of the confidence people have in the Commander in Chief.
Go pick up Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World. Read the chapter 'The Fine Art of Baloney Detection' or better yet pick up a book on critical thinking.
"69 percent of Americans now believe America can win the war in Iraq." But included in the 69 percent that Scarborough cited were 21 percent of respondents who believed that the United States "can win the war in Iraq" but "don't think it will win."
69% believe we can win. I understand that you wish he had pointed out that less than half think we WILL win but that does not make this untrue. I am simply pointing out that if the effort is on chasing statements that are phrased poorly then it is hard to be taken seriously when the big items are discovered. But hey, we will see how this tactic works in November.
"69% believe we can win. I understand that you wish he had pointed out that less than half think we WILL win but that does not make this untrue. I am simply pointing out that if the effort is on chasing statements that are phrased poorly then it is hard to be taken seriously when the big items are discovered."
Yes on it's face "69% believe we can win" is correct. The untruth is not the statement itself - it's the omission.
e.g. A used car salesman says this car was owned by a grandmother who drove it church. But he negects to tell you that the most recent owner was a teenager who put on 90% of the miles and trashed it.
The salesman is absolutely 100% correct in telling you that it was owned by a grandmother, but he omitted key information. Now in the sales world this is legal (Caveat emptor, and Puffery), but journalism is supposed to be held to the higher standard of truth and fact.
To steal from Stephen Colbert: There is less truthiness when you omit pertinent facts.
When in modern history hasn't a conservative commentator lied? Actually, it's not really lying; it's spinning--taking the facts and twisting them inside-out to support an agenda.
watched the show last night. Joe was having one of those talking out of both sides of his mouth nights.
Scarborough stated that the poll results said 69% believe we CAN win the war in Iraq...that is exactly what the poll said.
If you want to question the veracity of the poll results and the categories...go right ahead...but Scarborough reported it correctly...he did not say that 69% think we WILL win.
See greps excellent analysis of this. Can win but probably wont in no way supports the conclusion he tries to make from the data therefore its disengenuous to include it in his claim.
Scarborough's claim is 100% correct...irrespective of grep's anaysis.
If you take the time to read the poll results you will find that the pollsters CLEARLY state...net:can win 69%
They also state net:will win 48%. That's a debate for you and grep and anyone else who wants to join you.
mmfa is wrong on this one.
HE said it it clearly good news for the administration. Now how exactly is adding the 21% who said we COULD win but probably WONT good news for the administation it is cherry picking, it is a lie of omission.
- That's certainly good news for the president and bad news for Democrats, isn't it? -
Notice the question mark? Rather than your erroneous assumption about a clear statement...he was posing a question.
He cited the poll results verbatim...and accurately. So don't try those mind reading tactics that you rail so often against.
"Notice the question mark? Rather than your erroneous assumption about a clear statement...he was posing a question."
No it's called, Begging the Question yet another cheap debate tactic. In sales they are called 'Tie Downs' (e.g. You want a vacuum cleaner that really works. Don't You?). You state the point you want to make, and then follow it with 2 word question that begs the answer yes.
Like I stated before, you should pick up Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World - You can ignore the rest of the book, just read the chapter 'The Fine Art of Baloney Detection'.
I mean that has to be a joke. If you seriously consider that an argument you are hopeless
but I am pretty sure it will not happen with this administration.
Since zarqawi assumed room temperature 452 raids on the terrorist opposition have occured. 143 of the raids were conducted solely by Iraqi troops.
Gen.Caldwell states that 104 terrorists were killed...759 captured...uncovered 28 significant arms caches.
Americans killed: 2500+ Iraqi civilians killed: 100,000+ Americans seriously injured: 15,000+ Money spent: 500 billion dollars Timeline to bring troops home: never
Wow. Things are really going well, wouldn't you say?
Read the response options. "Definitely will" implies "can." "Probably will" implies "can." "Can but probably won't" says "can." He added up the three kinds of "can," it's not misrepresentation, and it's not a close call.
If you're going to point out "misrepresentations," you need to be a lot more careful.
Read the response options. "Definitely will" implies "can." "Probably will" implies "can." "Can but probably won't" says "can." He added up the three kinds of "can," it's not misrepresentation, and it's not a close call.
Your argument is a strawman. You are looking at a narrow part and in that part you are correct. You propped up the strawman, and knocked it down. But when you look at the full picture, your point falls flat.
When he says: a staggering 69 percent of Americans now say that we can still win the war in Iraq
He is omitting information. The full set of data paints a different picture to me. It may not to you, but the point is - if I did not find the information elsewhere I would not know the whole story. This is the fundamental difference between fact and opinion. News reporters should give us facts. When pertinent facts are omitted then it becomes at best opinion/persuasion and at worst an outright lie. You as the viewer are supposed to come away with the opinion. He as the journalist is supposed to present all the pertinent facts. (else you would swear in at a trial with 'You promise to tell whatever part of the truth you feel supports your side')
He is implying practicality when the poll number of 69% represent potentiality. The former being much more pertinent.
Now that isn't good - but where it really falls flat is when he tries to make his point of: over two out of three Americans think this war is winnable.
This is flat wrong. Winnable is a practical matter, a real matter. Only 51% of the polled think the war is winnable. Please read my previous comment.
Sorry - I reread my post above and it wasn't clear.
'You as the viewer are supposed to come away with the opinion.' Should Read 'You as the viewer are supposed to come away with your opinion from the facts presented'
Or, are these just the latest pseudonyms?
This is just one more example of the tactic perfected by Rush Limbaugh and imitated by the army of parrots who are now reading from the same list of GOP talking points. They give you part of the truth but purposely omit information that will call their conclusions into question. It is not technically lying, but it is misleading.
MMFA is correct in pointing this out.
Each side in political debate omits information that the other side believes is crucial. Scarborough is entitled to think it's important that most people believe success is possible. So MMFA is off base here. It needs to recognize a difference between a finding of misrepresentation and a liberal rejoinder.
No matter who does it.
Keep up the good work, MMFA.
It would STILL be considered disengenuous and if called out on it you would look bad. This was NOT a debate it was a JOURNALIST ( supposedly) giving facts to Americans who are supposed to make informed decisions based ON facts from the Media. That is the ideal. The reporter is NOT supposed to be DEBATING America and using trickery, which you are excusing, to put HIS point across. He is supposed to be honest and forthright, he was NOT being honest and forthright.