Wash. Post, O'Beirne misrepresented public support for Iraq timetable
SUMMARY: A Washington Post article misrepresented polling to state that the public is "evenly split" on withdrawing from Iraq. Similarly, National Review Washington editor Kate O'Beirne falsely claimed on NBC's Meet the Press that the public does "not support leaving prematurely, and a timetable to do so."
An August 27 article by Washington Post staff writers Jim VandeHei and Zachary A. Goldfarb misrepresented recent polling to depict the American public as "evenly split" on the issue of withdrawal from Iraq. Similarly, National Review Washington editor Kate O'Beirne falsely claimed on the August 27 edition of NBC's Meet the Press that the public does "not support leaving prematurely, and a timetable to do so." In fact, several recent polls have found that a majority of Americans support setting a timetable for withdrawal.
In their August 27 article, VandeHei and Goldfarb reported that many Democratic congressional candidates are hesitant to advocate a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq because of "the public's uncertainty over how best to proceed." The article went on to cite a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press as evidence that "the public is evenly split over pulling out U.S. troops":
In many ways, Democratic candidates' reluctance to call for the withdrawal of troops reflects the public's uncertainty over how best to proceed.
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, a nonpartisan polling organization, found this month that the public is evenly split over pulling out U.S. troops, with 48 percent in favor of keeping troops in Iraq and 46 percent in favor of withdrawal. Yet even among those who favor bringing U.S. troops home, only a third support doing so immediately. Asked another way, 52 percent of those polled said they would favor setting a timetable for getting out, while 41 percent would oppose that.
The "split" emphasized by VandeHei and Goldfarb appears in response to the following question: "Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?" But as blogger Greg Sargent noted, while this question offers two drastically different approaches to the war, it excludes the option that is the focus of the Post article -- setting a timetable for withdrawal. From Sargent's August 27 post:
That "46 percent in favor of withdrawal" cited by the Post is actually the number the poll cites as being is in favor of bringing home the troops "as soon as possible" or "now." In other words, in no way does that 46 percent represent all of those who want withdrawal in general, as the paper suggests. The second set of Pew numbers cited by the paper itself -- that respondents favor setting a timetable by a 52-41 margin -- is clearly a better way of measuring public sentiment on the broader withdrawal question, and it belies the suggestion that the poll found that the public is "evenly split over pulling out."
Sargent further noted that VandeHei and Goldfarb ignored numerous other recent polls in which a majority of respondents supported setting a timetable for withdrawal:
Meawhile [sic], the paper didn't bother mentioning that many other polls have shown that majorities want to set a withdrawal timetable, such as this CNN poll, which said respondents favor a timetable 57-40, or this Times poll, which says that 56 % favor a timetable. Then there's this Fox News poll, which said nearly 60 percent want all troops pulled out within a year.
While these polls cited by Sargent clearly show that most Americans support some form of withdrawal in the near future, prominent Republicans and conservatives continue to insist that the public is opposed to setting a timetable. In the most recent example, O'Beirne asserted on Meet the Press that regardless of "how pessimistic the public is, they do not support leaving prematurely, and a timetable to do so." In response, syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak noted that while the American public may not favor withdrawing from Iraq "prematurely," they do support withdrawal.
From the August 27 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
AL HUNT (Bloomberg News' Washington bureau managing editor) : The one thing that's not credible, as the National Review pointed out, is stay the course. Bush's policy is the one policy that's absolutely not credible. So I think that makes it very tough for Republicans today.
[crosstalk]
O'BEIRNE: Right. Well, they are changing that to "adapt for victory" sort of stuff. And it is true that public opinion is closer to the former. Despite all of the bad news and how pessimistic the public is, they do not support leaving prematurely, and a timetable to do so.
EUGENE ROBINSON (Washington Post columnist): But this has to get better. Things have to get better in Iraq.
[crosstalk]
NOVAK: What they support is leaving, see. They're -- "You want to leave prematurely?" "No, I don't want to leave prematurely, but I want to leave."
As President Gump said, gotta convince the people that they dont REALLY believe what they believe.
I hate saying this, but O'Beirne is an idiot and a lackey. She's made a career of botching the facts and her recent forays into "Big Numbers That Equal 100%" have been truly a sad sight to see and hear.
Another commentator on that show, the liberal WaPo columnist Eugene Robinson, is a really bright and savvy guy, and I wonder, why don't our best talking heads (like Robinson and EJ Dionne) come prepared to do battle? Is it so very hard to print off the latest polling numbers? Or to check the MMFA Web site? Is it so hard to brush-up on the who, what, when, where and why of current affairs, thus gaining significant advantage over the liars on the Cry Baby right? Is it too taxing to think of appropriate talking points and counter arguments in advance of the show?
Progressives and liberals are more effective on television in 2006 than in even 2004, and we have a lot more resources now, MMFA being one, TAP and the many excellent blogs (like Glenn Greenwald's "Unclaimed Territory"), too. Our leaders and thinkers need to start using them far more often and far more assertively. And as to that gas bag O'Beirne, well, no amount of learning can teach that confounded mouth-breather a new way of thinking.
My guess is that if you asked Tim Russert whether this was a balanced panel or not, he would say: "Of course! Al Hunt and Eugene Robinson are on the left; Bob Novak and Kate O'Beirne are on the right."
Mild mannered Hunt and Robinson are equivalent to Kate "I-Heart-Delay" O'Bierne and Bob "Which-CIA-Operative-Can-I-Out-Today?" Novak.
Think about that.
for consideration, the first being the absence of truth in media coverage pertaining to # of US service personnel killed or injured, # of Iraqi dead and percentage of civilian casualties, atrocities against civilians committed by US soldiers, nature of weaponry and extent of damage from uranium and extent of civil war in Iraq.
The second point concerns the funding origin of the poll and the limited demographic it represents, such as registered voters. A true sampling of every demographic would reveal much stronger disapproval of this administration, which has manifested as a malignant cancer on the body of the country.
You'd think fellow countrymen dying for the Republic would be significant news to the Republic's information sources. Oh well, Orwell?
to the discussions ? He addedtotal nonsense with his vitriolic Clinton hating , publicly insulted the former vice president remarking he was fat, Why he is given the microphone is insulting to civil public discourse.
Talk about your lame loaded questions.Was the word "premature" actually in there?
Let's see, what comes to mind after the word premature...
...birth ...ejaculation ...burial
Lotta positive connotations to that one.
Let's ask the equivalent question on the other end of the stick;
"Do you support keeping our troops in Iraq way too long, past the point where any good can be done, and the only result is more dead people and filthy rich people getting richer off of your taxes?"
As Sean Hannity would say, "YES OR NO! YES OR NO!"
Angus Reid consultants. The poll that registers 67% asks:
"Do you think the United States can prevent the violence in Iraq from becoming a civil war?"
A search on FOX comes up with a poll that gives a 76% figure for Democrats who support pulling the troops out by the end of this year OR over the next year. 57% of the GOPers want the troops to staying until after the Iraqi's are able to take control of the situation (that would be the year 2525?). The FOX opening summary of the poll actually says:
"more Americans support pulling troops out of Iraq by the end of next year than say they should stay until the Iraqis can take control."
But the actual stats given don't support that statement.
Any clarification here?
It's full blown sectarian warfare right now in Iraq. Outside the Green Zone, the militias are killing people simply for being of the wrong religion, a hundred or more dying daily. Even top Iraqi politicians say Iraq's done.
And our press continues to say it MIGHT turn into a civil war, over and over again, straight from the talking points memos...all lies meant to keep us from knowing how bad it is over there.
Oy.
I hate saying this, but O'Beirne is an idiot and a lackey. - tabkhan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you hate to say it? It's the truth. Clueless Kate is lying scum.
Dionne and Robinson should attack their credibility. They should stop letting the Russerts and Noron O'Donnells of the world persist with this fiction that bush is a popular President. He's not. Two to one say he's lying scum.
Half the republican party gets busted for links to Abramoff and Russert thinks the most pressing issue is whether Harry Reid will give back funds that didn't come from Abramoff. Some liberal media.
It's high time the responsible members of the media showed some stones and stood up to the inside the beltway nitwits who are more concerned with getting invited to the right cocktail parties and what they're going to wear to the Correspondents Ball like that bone-headed liz bumiller.
This is a statement that appeared in the Washinton Post on Saturday I believe, and is REVEALING regarding the Democrats strategy and THEIR patriotism.
some Democrats say the wisest political course is to blame Bush and the GOP for problems in Iraq but avoid getting drawn into a debate with Republicans over how they would go about dealing with the war.
In short, whine and complain, but offer NO CONSTRUCTIVE HELP. Not for the sake of the President and NOT for the sake of the Republican party. For the sake of THE TROOPS who THEY HELPED SEND THERE. I found this comment to be appalling and clear and convincing proof that Democrats have put party first and COUNTRY a distant second! Here's the link, and I fully expect to be ATTACKED UNMERCIFULLY FOR THIS POST!
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
You forgot to bold the first word some. There is no indication of how many that is, it is certainly not "the Democratic Strategy". There are many other comments about the other Democratic positions. The only one that counts is who is the next CIC
Since you have apparently forgotten, back in June Senator Kerry forced a debate on the war in the senate. It was the GOP who came up with a bill similar to Kerry's pending bill and tried to force a vote without any debate. This is contrary to senate procedure which had been followed - the leader asked Kerry about bringing his bill to the floor for consideration and Kerry told him the Democrats were discussing it amongst themselves and would submit a compromise version in a few days. Then a group of GOP senators pulled their little shenanigan forcing the Democrats to vote against it because, as Kerry kept saying, he wanted a floor debate on Iraq. Eventually they had it.
Jack Murtha also had a bill in the House. The GOP did at least as much to squash the debate there. However there is one GOP legislator - can't think who - that is looking at the original vote as no longer viable because Iraq is now in a civil, sectarian and insurgent war. Something our own commanders have said cannot be won by the military.
N0 constructive help? Kerry's been offering it since at least the campaign. It is based on MANY years of foreign policy experience, plus input from military commanders on the ground, regional leaders and scholars. It requires diplomacy and negotiation. There is no other way and Bush has no skill in either area to take it on. Nor does his Secretary of State.
Now about constructive help for the sake of the troops. How about adequate funding for supplies, benefits, pay and veterans health care? The Democrats have been trying to increase funding and the GOP keeps decreasing it.
You can paint all you like with the broad brush, the reality is that of the members of congress in both houses, the huge majority of veterans are Democrats.
And for myself, I'm an RN. I take care of the ones whose lives have been destroyed and are left to fend on miserable allowances for health care and living expenses. I have written letters to anyone and everyone in Congress who has anything to do with funding the VA and vet issues. I have written about VA, PTSD and traumatic brain injury funding. I talked with John Edwards personally during the campaign on PTSD.
You don't have a clue how much Democrats care about the soldiers- as individuals- not 'troops'. Your priority is to portray yourself as right-regardless of the facts or logic.