Hannity falsely claimed Fox poll found Dems don't want Bush's plan to succeed in Iraq
On the January 25 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity falsely stated that "a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll recently showed that most Democrats don't even want the president's plan to succeed in Iraq." In fact, the poll showed that 51 percent of Democratic respondents said they want President Bush's "Iraq plan" to succeed, compared with 34 percent who said they don't.
Referring to President Bush's proposal to send an additional 21,500 U.S. troops to Iraq, the poll, conducted January 16-17, asked, "Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?" Contrary to Hannity's claim, 51 percent of the poll participants who identified themselves as Democrats responded, "Yes," and 34 percent responded, "No," while 15 percent answered, "Don't know." Furthermore, the question did not ask, as Hannity claimed, whether respondents wanted "the president's plan to succeed in Iraq." It merely asked whether respondents wanted Bush's "Iraq plan" "to succeed," which respondents could have interpreted as a question about whether Bush should succeed in implementing his plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
Hannity may have confused the question with another in the poll that asked respondents, "Do you think most Democrats want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed and lead to a stable Iraq or do they want it to fail and for him to have to withdraw U.S. troops in defeat?" Thirty-two percent of all respondents (whether Democrats, Republicans, or independents) answered that they thought most Democrats wanted "Success," 48 percent answered, "Failure," 9 percent answered, "Some one, some another," and 11 percent answered, "Don't know."
From the January 25 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, during a discussion between Hannity and Republican strategist Mary Matalin:
HANNITY: The president reaches across the line. Nancy Pelosi, the day after election, had promised that she'd be -- quote -- "civil, bipartisan." Seems to go out the window pretty quickly here.
You know, and a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll recently showed that most Democrats don't even want the president's plan to succeed in Iraq.
MATALIN: That's stunning.
HANNITY: The president's approval ratings are low. How does he recover in this environment, when it appears they want no success for him?
Hannity saying something that isn't factual..
How dare Media Matters suggest this even thought the UnCommentator said it. Just like those poor misunderstood wretches in SF, using their own words to quote them...how unfair can this site be.
Okay Leather, waiting for your reaction to this...and please, no Clinton stuff here.
Question: Does anyone know someone (relative or otherwise) who believes this guy?
And why? How is it possible that someone who makes up stats and has an obvious agenda still lives on our airwaves? See also: Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc.
If you were to ask Hannity is it were OK for country A to invade country B, he'd have to ask for country names before he answered. If you were to ask if it is OK for the presiding US president to enact policies A, B, and C,he would want to first know if the prez was a Repub. His head would explode if you insisted that his answer should be the same for any president, and country.
Hannity, you are wrong for this country.
Well said Scooter.
You've never been to his website, obviously. He's worshipped. Every word that comes out of his mouth is holy writ. His fans fawn over him: "You're a Great American, Sean". Again, if you want to know how his audience (TV and radio) think of him, visit that site. Better yet, register to post comments, and see how long you last if you say anything against Bush. Be warned: despite what the rules of his site say, his fans are rabid.
"...who believes this guy?"
Sadly,Scooter, if Hannity's ratings are any indication there must be quite a number of Americans who believe Sean Hannity. Whenever I hear a right winger accuse of liberals of hating America I remind myself that it's not America that I hate... but it's hard to find love for the hopeless, ignorant morons in America who vote people like George Bush into office because they are led like sheep believing the vile spewed by Sean Hannity and his ilk. It's hard to admire an America that is capable of promoting such evil.
There is a monstrous gap between not wanting Bush's "plan" to succeed verses opining that it probably won't succeed, which it won't, how can't it?
How can reinstating troop levels to a previous high make a difference when, at the time, that same level produced similar results?
That's like taking the toast out with a fork for second time, because this time, unlike 15 months ago, I won't get shocked.
The only way i can see making a difference, is to flatten the place into a parking lot. Kinda like geremeny, or japan. But, this administration wont do it. They, like the rest of America, are puppets to the most evil and vulgur, vermin ran press. That is in MHO.
So the media is the problem? Amazing how you, like Bush, hit the head of the wrong nail time after time.
The media is full of scum, face it. Do you read the paper, watch the nightly news? Are you going to tell me the media is not on the side of the villian? That they do not make headlines that distort the truth?
Wow, for awhile there I thought EveilBillO was serious. Please, EB, put something in your posts that indicate you are kidding, so the rest of us don't think you are a complete moron.
Show me where the media points out a single hero in the last 4 years. Just one please.
Easy. That guy in NYC who rescued the teenager from getting run over by a subway train. He was all over the media.
Iraq Rusty, Iraq.
No problema, EL: [link to www.sptimes.com] />
Urgh! Trying again:
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/02/news_pf/Tampabay/Iraq_hero_joins_hallo.shtml
General Petraeus has generally garnered pretty fawning coverage by the media.
Here are a number of media stories that talk about "heroes" in Iraq.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2005/09/06/iraq_hero20050906.html
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/02/news_pf/Tampabay/Iraq_hero_joins_hallo.shtml
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/news/tm_headline=bomb-kills-iraq-hero&method=full&objectid=17978203&siteid=109975-name_page.html
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/12012007/140/bush-sheds-tears-iraq-hero.html
http://www.runcornandwidnesworld.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1099691.mostviewed.family_mourns_iraq_hero_leave_your_tributes.php
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1065640.cms
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773986/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/18/AR2006021801295.html
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051024/zirin
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4825949/site/newsweek/
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050405-123449-5230r.htm
http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=2254411&nav=EyAzQXOP
Just to name a few that I found with a cursory search. Individual soldiers, who are frequently covered in the press, are typically (and usually deservedly) treated with a good deal of respect, even when they are not being called "heroes." Moreover, is it the role of the press to create heroes or to report the news?
I had only seen one on a Local Network. Forget the web, I am talking about the nightly news.
Is that how you measure if the media is Liberal or Conservevils?
Have another drink.
Oh, BS! But ok...in case you've missed them, CBS Nightly News has done (maybe still do - I don't watch them anymore) very regular profiles on "Fallen Heroes." Face it...your comment was baseless partisan cr*p.
Just one? Ok...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/04/iraq/main685463.shtml
That was easy.
"Show me where the media points out a single hero in the last 4 years. Just one please." --Evillib
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here are three:
Jason Dunham
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4670149
Pat Tillman
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1849323
Paul Smith
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30916F6395B0C738FDDAA0894DD404482
Let me guess: if only the media would paint a rosy picture of the virtues of bombing Iraq to the ground, as you said. So the media isn't bloodthirsty enough, not enough rattling sabers, not enough cries of gung-ho and into the breech? Yes, just what we need. The triumphant return of Yellow Journalism.
Nice way to anser the question boy toy. Just run around it.
Do you mean this series of questions?
The media is full of scum, face it. Do you read the paper, watch the nightly news? Are you going to tell me the media is not on the side of the villain? That they do not make headlines that distort the truth?
The first sentence is a declarative. Next.
Yes, I read the paper. I seldom watch news programs, unless it's Olbermann or Joe Scarborough.
The media is on the side of the villain?? Which villain are we discussing? Bush? Al Qaeda? Sunnis who kill Shiites? Shiites who kill Sunnis? Sorry, but didactic thinking is a dead end when one is discussing what is cleverly dubbed REALITY.
For distorted headlines, see Fox Nothing Channel.
There, honey. Is that in keeping with your "standards" of what constitutes an answer? In any case, I feel dirty after wallowing through your thought process, and must shower several times if I ever hope to feel clean again.
Excuse me, but I don't see where your proposal differs all that much from what Saddam Hussein did to his opposition, the Kurds in 1988:
'In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children. A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after the demolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms, and power stations.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam%27s_Iraq
What exactly would be the distinction between him and us at that point?
Are you saying Saddam was justified in his similar wholesale destruction of the Kurds? Was he wrong because of some double standard you seem to be applying here?
"Are you saying Saddam was justified in his similar wholesale destruction of the Kurds? Was he wrong because of some double standard you seem to be applying here?"
Look, Saddam instilled fear, and that is what kept the country under control. Right or wrong, IT WORKED. I am not justifying it, after all, we came in to remove him because of these actions and WMD. I am not trying to apply a double standard.
Why not give us your opinion on how YOU think we could win?
Winning on the Admiistration terms and definition is unattainable. "Winning" doesn't fix the underlying issue.
I am more interested in making this work, right now it's not working.
I answered your question. Answer mine: What is winning in your opinion?
IMO, I would like to see Iraq becaome a peacful country. That would be wining to me.
and what has occured to make you think that is going to happen?
You just said you wanted to flatten the place into a parking lot.
America isn't even a "peaceful" country. You just made very broad statement. Din't you want to carpet bomb the place a few post back? Make up your mind.
What would peaceful entail?
"Look, Saddam instilled fear, and that is what kept the country under control. Right or wrong, IT WORKED. I am not justifying it, after all, we came in to remove him because of these actions and WMD. I am not trying to apply a double standard." --evillib
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are apparently avoiding answering the question. You are attempting to remove any moral judgement from what Saddam did, which is the crux of my question. Any answer based on the results of what he did is moot as his goal and the US goal of pacification are essentially the same. Do the "ends justify the means" here?
Considering your apparent position, I would think it near impossible for you to condemn Saddam at all.
To a hammer all the world is a nail.
For the most part the bombing of GERMANY and Japan where on military infrastructure ( factories and such ) in an effort to eliminate their ability to make war. In the case of Iraq it was my understanding we are there NOW to liberate them not kill them all. So if I am to understand your statment you are now so feed up with those people that we should just level their country to teach um a lesson about messin with the U.S. of A.
Is that you Mr. Savage? Because those are words you use constantly. If not, Dr. Evil, you are a plagarist. And misled.
Yeah, we have heard the warmonger sentiment that the real problem is we just arent killing enough innocent people. I mean they live there and they are kinda brown so why shouldnt we just kill them all and let God sort them out. You are sick and in need of a mental health professional.
Hey Evillib, it's spelled "Germany." "Flatten the place into a parking lot." Well, your lust of spilling the blood of innocent people to acheive a political goal is no different than the terrorists' mentality.
How about asking,
"Why would the Dems want Bush to succeed?"
Because we don't want our troops dying, you cretin.
How about asking, "What does 'succeed' even mean in this context?" Success for Bush and success in Iraq are two different things.
No answer I see. Figures.
No, he explained it well. The article above also makes some distinctions on what could meant by "succeed".
It is kind of hard to answer a question without nailing down what is meant by "succeed". You may have interpreted your question/statement one way, but others may interpret it differently. Clams was just pointing out that difference in perception. In order to answer your question, it would be better if everyone explicitly understood what you meant.
If we must send more troops, of course we want them to succeed. However, this is NO different from last year when we had 150K troops there-- with one exception--this year W decided to loudly publicize this troop "surge."
Pray tell why? Because if congress stops him he can claim we were on the brink of winning except those unpatriotic Democrats stopped him. If they don't stop him, he simply has to hold on for two years when this wretched crap becomes the problem and "the decision of future Presidents."
Instead of listening to AWOL George, you should listen to his Generals (current and retired) as should he. It makes me want to vomit when I think of the dying that will result because he wants to play a political game.
No it wasnt it was the snide rantings of a moron
I've tuned into his radio show a few times and I heard him just hang up on callers when he gets backed into a corner. I'd love to see him or O'reily and any off these morons have a real debate with anyone who has have a clue about what really going on in this country. The dishonesty and propaganda from these guys is just nauseating.
who has have a clue about what really going on in this country....
None in office does, period
See, that's why they are on the radio...no one can throw rotting fruit at them.
Check out the poll. Question 31 speaks more directly the question at hand. It asks about americans patientience with the war on terror and the wimpy, yellow-bellied democrats seems to be twice as likely to think that the American public has the stones to win the war on terror. Report the Shammity
Read the poll questions...
Very leading, very FOX.
How about an informal, unscientific poll of those here......."Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?
Yes.
No.
I Don't Know.
"YES". Of course I want America to Succeed.
However, I do not feel that is the right plan.
Evil,
I agree with you, but the inherent problem with many of these polls is you aren't given that caveat, only Yes, No, or I Don't know.
very true. You have 6 questions. Fair and ballanced? More likley not.
Interesting.
He asked if you wanted Bush's plan to succeed and you immediately answer that you wanted America to succeed. Are you saying that Bush is America?
Yes.
But, if he proposed dropping candy wrappers on major cities, I'd still want the plan to succeed. Almost everybody in America obviously wants any plan to succeed (although if you listen/believe Faux you'd think otherwise). They've been rooting for some plan that makes any sense. They endured "stay the course" for too many years, then had to listen to "we never said stay the course", now on to "more troops, damnit."
Those with average to high intelligence want the plan to succeed, but realize that a troop increase is not the answer. Just like those of us who have been screaming that there were no WMD (we were correct) and that an invasion would create a complete quagmire (we were correct) and that the war was going to run more than "6 days, 6 weeks, but certainly not 6 months" (we were correct.
We also knew that "give us just 6 months more" was incorrect after one year. We knew that "give us 6 more months" was incorrect after 1-1/2 years. And at 2 years. And at 2-1/2 years. And at 3 years.
Does any of this sink into the small minds at Fox and their followers? We (and we know who we are) have been correct for many years. BushCo has been wrong all that time.
So tell me... does anyone still honestly believe that BushCo's plan is what is needed to succeed?
So tell me... does anyone still honestly believe that BushCo's plan is what is needed to succeed?
Hell no.
Hey EL, we gave you all those examples of the media recognizing Iraq war heroes and not even a "thanks"? Man!
Sorry, i was out to lunch.
Do you remember any mention on the nightly news? CBS, ABC, FOX ect?
I don't watch the nightly news, EL. I get my news from newspapers, radio and the internet.
"ChristianDemocrat" just gave you one from CBS.
Okay, I'll bite.
<> If, by succeed, you mean a peaceful, stable Iraq, then I say yes, I hope he succeeds. As much as I hate Bush, and think invading Iraq was stupid, the best possible outcome now is for the fighting to stop and the Iraqis to make nice with each other. Is that likely to happen? I don't think so, but could be wrong.Exactly. Hey I would want to see a peaceful Iraq even if the plan was to rub a dusty Arabian lamp in the hopes of bringing out a Genii and making it one of my wishes. I think this plan has about the same chance of success as Bush's plan but I guess we always hope for the best.
Yes
Umm...I mean, No.
Errrr....I don't know.
Good question. I am a little different than many on this issue. I suppose overall my answer would be a "yes".
I remember watching a documentary a long time ago about Vietnam. It was argued that more troops are always preferable when possible to protect the troops. Troops are tactically more vulnerable to attack in smaller numbers.
It is good tactics to increase the troop numbers. Strategically, it is a definite escalation of the war. There are many logical flaws and loops that we now find ourselves tangled up in. Vietnam foreshadowed all of this, of course.
But then again, I feel kind of silly bringing up lessons from Vietnam when this administration has seemingly ignored all of the other lessons from that colossal mistake.
Matalin probably knew the real numbers in that poll but did not want to make Hannity look like an idiot or a liar. It is often hard to tell which he is most of the time.
Yes, I want ANY plan to succeed. Yes I want young men and women to come home, have jobs and the military to provide all the services needed to help them adjust to living every day lives. I want the military to continue to provide the services for as long as they are needed.
Do I think that will happen? No, just look at all the homeless Vietnam Vets.
After almost 4 years of stubbornness, lies and incompetence, no I don't think George Bush's plan will work. I don't think he has the intelligence to listen to advise from smarter, more experienced people. He is untrustworthy and I would not trust him to walk my dog down the street, let alone cross the street.
Sean if that makes me one of the dems who don't want the Bush plan to succeed, then by all means add me to the list.
Bush's plan is about as likely to succeed as my plan to have us all run across an interstate highway at rush hour and reach the other side safely.
Of course I hope we all get across without any of us getting struck & ending up a bloody splat on the blacktop...BUT it's still a dumb plan. Sorta like the Bush plan for Iraq.
Horrible Hannity lying about someone else's polls is one thing. When Hannity starts lying about his own FAUX polls, you KNOW his sorry rear end is getting DESPERATE. Sad, sad man.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
I would like very much for there to be a just, peaceful and prosperous Iraq. I would like for the civilian population there to be freed from the nightmare they have endured during our occupation. I would like for their oil to benefit the Iraqi people rather than the multi-nationals who are carving up oil concessions during the chaos. I would like very much for our brave soldiers to come home safely.
Caveat: I very much fear that anything that could remotely be termed a "success" in Iraq while Bush is president will be taken by him as a green light to attack Iran. Any sort of success will also be used to excuse the lies and deceit that lead us into this debacle in the first place. Despite these caveats, I want us to succeed. Unfortunately these doubts alone would probably be construed by the Sean Hannities of this world to mean that I do not wish to see success in Iraq.
"That's stunning?"
What, that your co-host is a windbag? And someone define "most" for me. 34% don't seem like most. 51% don't seem like most. Most to me is say--oh, i don't know--upwards of 90%. But I nitpick.
Top Secret Bush plan for Iraq in 2008
With American soldiers now buying homes in Iraq (sine they have been there for over 6 years) and 90% of the U.S. now owned by China (to pay down the debt), Bush remanes Iraq, Barnyland and makes himself king. His take over secured by the ever "Surging" numbers of U.S. soldiers.
Ssshh, don't tell anyone
How was the Fox News poll conducted?
I don't think anyone in his/her right mind would participate in a "Fox News" poll. I certainly would hang up on the person. I imagine most of the respondants to the poll actually treat Fox News as news, so any poll would be skewed against the Democratic Party.
"How was the Fox News poll conducted?"
Usually they just poll everyone at FOX news... but it's gotten so bad for Bush that he's even losing ground there.
Did you see the SOTU Fox poll that Jon Stewart had on? 85% Excellent for Bush.Of course, this is the opinion of people stoopid enough to make a toll call to tell Fox that Bush is "excellent".
Hi RamJet:
I might start posting as...THE TROLL DETECTOR.
I’ll work full time sniffing out such anomalies. I agree, there are many Puzzling, Curious and Suspicious Encounters of the Third Kind. that are definitely here.
And they’re probably paid good moola to raise hell at this “Far-Left Swamp Pit”.
Back a few years ago when I was doing investigative reporting, I checked out the Fox News Opinion Dynamics polling organization and found they do polling for many big oil companies, Republican candidates and Fox News. I wrote a story about my findings, and shortly thereafter the Fox News Opinion Dynamics Polling organization removed from their web site any mention of oil companies or republican candidates they have as clients.
"Do you want the bush plan to succeed?"
See that is what is called a weasel question. There is no such thing as a correct answer because no matter how you answer it won't be the correct answer.
The question should be DO YOU THINK bush's PLAN WILL SUCCEED?
THAT is an honest question.
Too many weasel trollz on this site. Almost as bad as Huffpost and all the trollz who live there, even the paid ones. Such as, I am sure, the paid ones who come here.
The worst are the Trolls who continually change their names; ever evolving, much like the AIDS virus.
Do I want the Bush plan to succeed in bringing peace and stability to Iraq, minimizing US and Iraqi deaths? Yes. Do I want the Bush plan to succeed in creating any sort of credibility for his foreign policy, or any Republican wins over the next several election cycles? No.
I believe that, fortunately, the plan will fail in the second sense.
I believe that, unfortunately, the plan will fail in the first sense.
I will not relish failure in the second sense, given the geopolitical disaster and probable additional loss of life that failure in the first sense will entail.
However, if success in the first sense were possible, I would gladly accept success in the second sense.
I would also gladly answer any poll, and only one, that enabled me to frame my response in those terms.