WSJ's Stephens claimed that Americans are "not for pulling out" of Iraq; polls suggest otherwise
SUMMARY: On The Journal Editorial Report, Wall Street Journal editorial writer Bret Stephens asserted that an internal White House poll "reflects the fact that Americans want a strategy for winning ... not for pulling out," but failed to note that the most recent Journal poll, as well as other recent public polls, show that Americans do support pulling troops out of Iraq.
On the June 24 edition of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report, Wall Street Journal editorial writer Bret Stephens responded to host Paul Gigot's claim that internal White House polling has found that public support for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq has never exceeded "32 percent" and "has fallen to 25 percent" by baselessly asserting that the White House poll "reflects the polling we have seen." Stephens then added that the White House poll "reflects the fact that Americans want a strategy for winning ... not for pulling out." However, the most recent poll conducted by the Journal itself found that a majority of respondents would be "more likely" to vote for a congressional candidate who favored pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, while other recent public polls suggest that a majority of Americans support pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, as Media Matters for America recently noted.
According to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, conducted June 9-12, 54 percent of those surveyed said they would be "more likely" to vote for a congressional candidate who favored "pulling all American troops out of Iraq in the next twelve months," while 32 percent disagreed. Similarly, a June 14-19 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 52 percent of respondents believed that the United States should "set a timetable for when troops will be withdrawn from Iraq," while 42 percent disagreed. A CNN poll conducted June 14-15 similarly found that 53 percent of respondents favored a timetable for withdrawal, while 41 percent opposed such a measure.
In addition, a June 23-25 USA Today/Gallup poll, released after Stephens' comments on The Journal Editorial Report, found that 50 percent of those polled said the U.S. should withdraw troops from Iraq at some point within the next year (17 percent said "immediately" and 33 percent said "in 12 months' time") compared with 41 percent who said the U.S. should "take as many years as needed." A June 22-25 ABC News/Washington Post poll, also released after Stephens' comments, found that Americans were almost evenly split over the question of whether "the United States should or should not set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, with a slim majority of 51 percent saying that the United States "should not set a deadline" and 47 percent saying it should, nearly double the amount that Stephens claimed support troop withdrawal.
From the June 24 edition of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report:
GIGOT: Bret, this is an amazing political turnabout. I mean, two or three weeks ago the Iraq war was thought to be a big Republican disadvantage. But what we have seen in the House and this week in
the Senate is that the Democrats are now divided on Iraq. What -- what changed?
[...]
GIGOT: I know it will surprise you, Bret, to find out that the White House actually does polling on Iraq war. And they found support for pulling out was the high point -- all along has only been 32 percent. And the last couple of weeks, it has fallen to 25 percent. I think that also helped Republicans get the -- the courage of their convictions on Iraq and it was striking to me that the Republican Party, House and Senate kind of rallied here behind the president. When, as you know, there has been a lot of private griping about how this war has been prosecuted.
STEPHENS: I think that -- I think that's right. I think that polling reflects the polling we have seen. Both the disenchantment with the administration, as well as the poll you just mentioned, reflects the fact that Americans want a strategy for winning, as Melanie said -- not for pulling out, not for extricating ourselves from -- from problems that I think a majority of Americans understand we can't simply wash our hands of, but for winning. And for a long time, there was this sense of drift. The killing of [Abu Musab al-] Zarqawi, the creation of -- the completion of [Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-] Maliki's government, a sense of progress in -- in -- in Iraqi politics, and, of course, [President] Bush's visit to Baghdad are changing that perception.
The 0.1% of Americans (= CEOs and shareholders of the corporations getting no-bid contracts) do NOT want to 'us' pull out of Iraq.
FOR BUSINESS!
Questions written by RoveCo should be a hoot. I only wonder if it includes "drop their weapons and run screaming like little girls."
Was probably something like this..."Do you favor pulling out of Iraq and letting all those terrorists attack the United States?"
"Karl, how many Americans do you think support withdrawing troops from Iraq?'
"Ummmm...25%."
"Ok, 25%. Run with it, Tony."
Whenever a poll shows that a lefty view is favored by the respondents, the conservative media always says "who cares what polls say? We don't govern to polls." Then when a poll supposedly skews their way, they throw it all over the news. OR...they casually say "polls say Americans side with the Republicans on (fill in your right wing topic du jour)" but they don't name the poll or show the specific questions (as alluded to by Sagra here.) Misdirection and misinformation as perfected by the right.
The media has their narrative in hand. No facts on the ground will change that.
It's not a complaint, simply an observation: Both this item and the one that leads the day (Newsday's Pinkerton, etc.), both give the names of the individuals being cited, along with the names of the periodicals that publish their ink-stained opinions; but in neither case are those periodicals involved, and in both cases it's Fox.
Yet Fox is not mentioned in the title to either item, even though they are the vehicle of what's being cited.
I wondered about this; enough to mention it. Maybe there's a reason for it, maybe not; maybe we don't want to get the reputation of being Fox-heavy...
It doesn't matter.
Regarding the spin that continues (and shall continue) over last week's Republican defeat of the Levin Amendment:
It was such an astounding thing, thirty-nine U.S. Senators (one of them a Republican!) making for a block that took the time to propose and support the idea that a strategic redeployment of U.S. Troops from Iraq should finally be a part of their mission there...
Which is of course an idea held (for a long time now) by the majority of the American People.
And those thirty-nine Senators (one of them a Republican!) now stand in the lead for that majority of American People in their efforts to bring their Sons and Daughters home (alive) from Iraq.
Such an opposition, long Public and now Senatorial too, is a serious threat to the administration's (and the Senate and House Republican leadership's) scheme in Iraq.
And so this item gives us a Sunday response to that threat, with:
GIGOT: ...this is an amazing political turnabout. I mean, two or three weeks ago the Iraq war was thought to be a big Republican disadvantage. But what we have seen in the House and this week in the Senate is that the Democrats are now divided on Iraq. What -- what changed?
Now, the person transcribed here somehow manages to say this without saying "surge of momentum", as in...
"Republicans were at a disadvantage with regard to Iraq. What -- what changed to account for this sudden surge in Republican momentum?"
They also manage to not say "second wind", as in...
"Republicans were at a disadvantage with regard to Iraq. What -- what changed to account for this second wind for Republicans?"
And I can only guess it's because the American People are sufficiently wise and lightening-quick (on their Internet-Wire) in these matters, to have already ridiculed the "surge of momentum" and "second wind" talking points into an embarrassed retreat.
But it's still there nevertheless, the spin; it can't go away anytime soon either; this whole business of redeployment (the American People's main concern on Iraq) is too much a threat to the Iraq scheme; those thirty-nine Senators (one of them a Republican!) was too much support for redeployment; too much for the administration to ignore.
The administration (and their media hacks) have this as a high (highest) priority right now, to erode that Senatorial support for redeployment.
I do not say to erode the American People's support for redeployment; the hacks have tried hard and long to do that, and have failed; the American People have proved "erosion-proof" on the matter...
They are a Rock on this matter, a Mountain...
...because you see, it is their Sons and Daughters being killed in Iraq.
You do see this?
Well, if you do not, then it would only mean that you were in the company of Senate Republicans (save one!), and House Republicans too.
They are unable to see the deaths of thousands of our Sons and Daughters in Iraq (or if they see them, then they apparently do not care); they refuse to make a strategic redeployment of U.S. Troops from Iraq a part of their mission there.
Perhaps they are blinded from seeing these things; perhaps blinded by $8 billion dollars per months reward for their Iraq scheme.
I'll say it again: It's a mighty perilous course these guys are staying, ignoring the American People and the deaths of thousands of their Sons and Daughters in Iraq...
...$8 billion dollars per month seems hardly worth such political peril as that.
Reminds me of a scene in "Liar Liar":
"Your honor, I object!" "On what grounds?" "Because it's incredibly damaging to my case!"