NY Times' Stolberg uncritically quoted GOP strategist's claim that public does not support withdrawal
In a January 9 article, New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg uncritically quoted an assertion by an anonymous Republican strategist that "the public is not for immediate withdrawal or even a quick withdrawal, but they're not for the status quo." The Times further quoted the strategist as saying, "I think they [the president's advisers] feel as if the public is more likely to support the president's position," an apparent reference to Bush's call for an increase in troops in Iraq. In fact, available polling shows that a majority of Americans support some type of troop withdrawal while only a small minority support an increase in troops, facts that the Times did not include in its article:
- A CBS News poll released on January 8 reported that 59 percent of respondents support a decrease in troops in Iraq or removing all troops from Iraq, while only 18 percent support an increase in troops (conducted January 1-3, with a margin of error of +/- 3 percent).
- A CNN poll (conducted December 15-17, with a margin of error of +/- 3 percent) reported that 53 percent of respondents support a withdrawal either immediately or within a year, while only 11 percent support sending more troops to Iraq.
- A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll (conducted December 8-11, with a margin of error of +/- 3 percent) reported that 52 percent of respondents think the United States should withdraw troops from Iraq on a "fixed timetable," while only 12 percent support sending more troops to Iraq.
- An ABC News/Washington Post poll (conducted December 7-11 with a margin of error of +/- 3 percent) reported that 52 percent of respondents think the number of U.S. military forces in Iraq should be decreased, while only 17 percent think the number should be increased.
Additionally, a Gallup poll released January 9 shows that 61 percent of the public opposes a "temporary but significant increase in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq."
From Stolberg's January 9 article in The New York Times:
Despite Mr. Bush's insistence that he does not govern by polls, the White House is acutely aware that a vast majority of the American public disapproves of the job Mr. Bush is doing in Iraq. But advisers to the president believe that the public is willing to give Mr. Bush another chance -- especially if he puts forth a policy that is heavy on specifics.
The president's advisers are also mindful of polls showing that while the public wants the situation to improve in Iraq, it does not necessarily favor immediate withdrawal.
"They're going to cast it as a choice between withdrawal and surge," said one Republican strategist close to the White House. "The public is not for immediate withdrawal or even a quick withdrawal, but they're not for the status quo. I think they feel as if the public is more likely to support the president's position, which is putting a stake in the ground in Iraq and saying were going to try to win."
"The president's advisers are also mindful of polls showing that while the public wants the situation to improve in Iraq, it does not necessarily favor immediate withdrawal."
About that bridge in San Francisco I am going to sell you........
This headline suggests that the GOP strategist claims that the public does not support withdrawal. That is not what the strategist says in this piece - but more specifically "immediate" or "quick" withdrawal. A very important distinction left out.
One of the questions is:
"From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?"
59% said decrease or remove all. As per the question, that means NOW.
Read it again. Only 29% said NOW, not 59% as you suggest, in error. The other 30% said decrease, which does not mean NOW.
This is for everyone else because I could care less what you say.
He's talking about withdrawal. He doesn't say "some" or "all", he says withdrawal, and 59% favor it.
Reminder: "Your incessant quibbling over silly semantics renders any main points you are trying to make.........well, impotent." --Tommy
I stand by my assessment. The strategist says immediate or quick withdrawal. The poll you cite says 29% favor removing troops NOW, 30% say decrease - which is not immediate removal.
This isn't hard.
From the CNN poll:
Here are four different plans the U.S. could follow in dealing with the war in Iraq. Which one do you prefer?Withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately. Withdraw all troops by December, 2007 -- that is, in 12 months time. Withdraw troops, but take as many years to do this as are needed to turn control over to the Iraqis. OR, Send more troops to Iraq."
Immediately: 21 % By 12/07: 33%
21 + 33 = 54. A majority of those polled favour an immediate or quick withdrawal of troops from Iraq. QED.
See, that was easy, wasn't it?
Bush's advisors are as delusional as he is if they think the nation is willing to give him another chance to put more Americans in harms way.
And the choice is not and never will be between withdrawal and "surging". The choice is to leave or to escalate. The people have spoken, we should leave, now.
If Bush's position is, as the Republican strategist says, to put a stake in the ground and try to win, I have a better suggestion. Let Bush put something of his at stake in Iraq. His children should go, along with the children of his supporters, before anyone else's children are sent.
Since you always offer posts of substance, I am very unsure of this whole Bush proposal. I am leaning towards agreeing with you saying this troop "surge" is just more American targets, but on the other hand if we are to "win", whatever that means, then we need to be serious about doing the job. Our troops there deserve no less.
I can't endorse Bush's plan yet, so I am pretty much in your corner. But I am not convinced that immediate withdrawal is the best answer for us either........??
It is a mess, that is for sure.
People that joined in hopes to go to Iraq and make a difference. Its not like everyone over there does not want to be there. I must admit though, I would not want my son over there.
Funny, immediate withdrawl? You think the dems will pull it off? I do not think so. Now that the elections are over, the wall of Dem BS will fall for all to see. I bet, no one comes home for a longgggg tineeeeee.
Agree on ANYTHING? On the other hand a poll of the troops IN Iraq show that more than 70% of them want to come home within a year. Its long past time to bring the troops home. We never should have invaded in the first place I dont believe anything good can be accomplished by staying. Its seen as imperialism we need to cut our losses on all fronts and end the occupation of Iraq
I agree 100% it is long overdue, and we never should have invaded in the first place. I never nelieved it from the start.
With that said, are the Dems going to ask tonight, tomorrow, in the next month to bring them home NOW? I doubt it. Just more political BS.
you guys soooooo intellegent. Do us a favor, run for congress and make a difference.
Either you're on high on meds or need to be.
I am on vicoden. That was in reference to the Tommy bashing.
I think that most people who read a newspaper or other periodical, like Time or Newsweek, I think they read the headline to the article or piece first, and then of course they read the article...
...but I don't think most people pay any attention to the name attached to what they've just read, to the author of the piece.
And this, despite the fact that it is so much the words of the author that they have just read, as to say they have just listened to the author's opinions or other thoughts on the subject matter of the article or piece...
...listened without knowing who it was who was speaking to them, or even caring to know.
I used to do that. I used to read stuff in the papers or magazines without considering who wrote what I was reading... without even reading the author's name at all!
I don't do that anymore. I always read the name of the author now, and I always keep in mind as I read, that these words I'm reading are the words of an individual person... that the opinions and other thoughts expressed, are that person's thoughts and opinions, signified by that person's words.
You and I don't read the words of the New York Times (that thing isn't a person... it can't even speak, let alone write), we read the words of the writers employed by the New York Times.
And it's one of the thing's I'm grateful to MMFA for... for drawing my attention to the names of some of the more opinionated writers and other hacks, at the daily and weekly rags.
As for this Sheryl Gay Stolberg, I usually don't waste my time reading her words... whatever the subject matter, I'll either find out more about it elsewhere, or just trust to what I already know (or can even guess)...
...but it's different with Carl Hulse... I almost always read his words.
I like to see what smart-Alec thing he's gonna write next, about Congressional Democrats. I think he and Sheryl are republican favorites... republicans ("strategists" or whatever) love to favor Carl and Sheryl with inside, hot topic information (with the latest talking-point, "Just crafted this very morning, Carl and/or Sheryl!".
It shows, in the words they write...
...which again, as you read them, in the ink-stained pages or the weekly rags, you should always notice their names.
You should always know who it is you're listening to, when the subject matter is as important as U.S. National Policy.
of these polls is how many respond that they want to withdraw, but "stay as long as it takes".
Meaning there is a good number of our fellow voters who have figured out in their brain and their gut that it's a big scam, but are still scared enough to let their government run wild.
I guess that's the Republican base.
I hit the NYT web page this morning, just now, and there's a piece right at the top... it's got the word "Democrats" in the headline, and it's got Carl Hulse's name attached to it...
CLICK!
"Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Bush's Iraq Troop Plan"
I didn't know that.
I knew that Sen. Kennedy announced he would introduce a Resolution in the Senate to require Congressional approval for any increase in the number of U.S. troops presently occupying Iraq (nothing "symbolic" about that)... and I'd have thought that was the big news, Sen. Kennedy's unequivocal announcement... but I see the headline is about something else, something I didn't know... something about "symbolic votes".
And so I'm off to reading the article, wanting to know which Congressional Democrat it was, that was proposing "symbolic votes" just now...
I'm looking for a quote, for a name... who the heck among them Democrats on the Hill said anything about "symbolic votes" just now... or if they didn't use that word "symbolic", at least implied something that could be interpreted as "symbolic"...
I'm looking for a quote, for a name...
I can't find either... not a quote announcing any "symbolic votes" (by that word or by any implication), nor any named person proposing such a thing.
[link to www.nytimes.com]
[Headline] "Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Bush's Iraq Troop Plan"
[Lead sentence to lead paragraph] "Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad..."
[Lead to second paragraph] "Senate Democrats decided to schedule a vote on the resolution after a closed-door meeting on a day when Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced legislation to require Mr. Bush to gain Congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq."
(What I highlighted there, I'd have thought that was the big news on the matter... and this article about Democratic "symbolic votes" was the only item on the NYT front page on the matter... nothing else about Sen. Kennedy's announcement found there. Back to the article...)
[Lead to third paragraph] "The Senate vote is expected as early as next week, after an initial round of committee hearings on the plan Mr. Bush will lay out for the nation Wednesday night..."
[Lead to fourth paragraph] "The office of Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, followed with an announcement that the House would also take up a resolution in opposition to a troop increase."
(At last, a name! But no quote... and now that I notice it, it isn't really the Speaker who's being referred to here by name, but her "office". I need to know more about who is proposing "symbolic votes" just now, and what they said. Onward...)
[Lead to fifth paragraph] "In both chambers, Democrats made clear that the resolutions — which would do nothing in practical terms to block Mr. Bush’s intention to increase the United States military presence in Iraq — would be the minimum steps they would pursue."
OK, I'll cut to the chase... none of the sentences I've excerpted here, or any others that balance out the article, contain any quote from any Congressional Democrat about any "symbolic votes"... the Speaker's name was mentioned once (actually no, it was her "office" mentioned), but even that had no quote accompanying it.
And so I'm at a loss who to hold accontable for proposing "symbolic votes" at this time (although it is Sen. Kennedy I know, who has proposed something not at all symbolic)...
The only person I'm left to hold accountable for the notion of "symbolic votes" right now is Carl Hulse, who's name is attached to the article...
...and he has not the credibility with me, to just take his word for it, that some Democrat on the Hill, leadership or otherwise, is proposing "symbolic votes" at this time...
...and at the bottom of the piece is written that Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting.
Gee, if I'd have know that before I'd started reading, I'd have looked elsewhere for information on the matter, or just gone with what I already know (or can even guess).