LA Times poll question, article gave Bush's argument against war timetable, but not Democratic argument for it
A question in an April 5-9 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll and an April 10 Los Angeles Times article about that poll both included President Bush's argument against a congressional measure providing supplemental funding for the Iraq war that includes a timetable for withdrawal without including the Democratic position in favor of it, though even with the skewed wording, a plurality said they think Bush should sign "a funding authorization that includes a timetable for withdrawal."
Question 49 in the poll, about whether respondents thought that Bush "should sign a funding authorization that includes a timetable for withdrawal, or should he veto that legislation," included Bush's argument for his veto threat -- "because he believes it would tie the hands of battlefield commanders and make defeat in Iraq more likely" -- but not Congress' argument for including a timetable in the troop funding bill:
As you may know, Democrats in both houses of Congress passed legislation that ties further funding of the war in Iraq to targeted dates for withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq. Bush says he will veto any measure that sets such a timetable because he believes it would tie the hands of battlefield commanders and make defeat in Iraq more likely. Do you think that Bush should sign a funding authorization that includes a timetable for withdrawal, or should he veto that legislation?
But even a question that provided only Bush's arguments resulted in 48 percent saying that Bush should sign a funding bill that contains a timetable, compared with 43 percent who said he should veto the bill.
Question 50 in the poll also omitted the Democratic position, and that, too, resulted in a plurality opposing Bush's view:
If George W. Bush vetoes the legislation, do you think Congress should pass another version of the bill that provides funding for the war without any conditions for troop withdrawal, or should Congress refuse to pass any funding bill until Bush agrees to accept conditions for withdrawal?
The article stated that, according to Question 50, Democrats and Republicans differ on whether Congress should "withhold the funding unless Bush accepts some conditions for troop withdrawal."
Notwithstanding the claim in the article and poll that the issue concerns whether Congress should "withhold funding" or "refuse to pass any funding bill," Congress is not debating whether to withhold funding or pass a funding bill; as Media Matters for America has noted, both the House and Senate have passed bills that provide funding for the troops, and it is Bush who has threatened to withhold funding by vetoing the bill. Moreover, the poll question skews the issue by presenting only two options for Congress if Bush vetoes the bill it sends to the White House: Either send a bill with no "conditions for troop withdrawal" or "refuse to pass any funding bill until Bush agrees to accept conditions for withdrawal." There are other options unmentioned in the question: Congress could also send Bush another funding bill that continues to reflect the will of Congress and the public for commencing redeployment from Iraq. Nonetheless, even with the skewed wording, a narrow plurality of respondents -- 45 percent versus 43 percent -- took the side in favor of provisions for troop redeployment.
From the April 10 Los Angeles Times article:
Respondents were divided along party lines as to whether Gonzales should resign. Among Democrats, 68% said he should do so; among Republicans, 33% said he should depart.
Independents tip the balance -- 57% said they supported calls for his resignation, while 22% said they thought he should stay.
On another issue, the poll found that Americans are also split along partisan lines over pending congressional legislation that would provide new funding for the war in Iraq, but require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from the country.
Asked whether Bush should accept or veto a bill that included a timetable, 48% said he should sign such a measure while 43% said he should reject it. A significant majority of Democrats -- 74% -- backed signing the bill; an even bigger majority of Republicans, 80%, supported a veto.
Bush has pledged to veto a war funding bill if Congress sends it to him with withdrawal language.
If the president carries out his promise, Democratic voters do not want the party's legislators in Washington to reach an accord with him.
Some Democratic congressional leaders have conceded that that they almost assuredly cannot get the two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate needed to override a veto. So they would then face a choice between approving the war funding bill without a timetable or blocking the money -- and come under withering criticism from Bush for failing to support U.S. troops on the battlefield.
Given that choice, 66% of Democrats want Congress to hold firm and withhold the funding unless Bush accepts some conditions for a troop withdrawal.
Among Republicans, 73% say they want Congress to fund the war without conditions.
I'm not surprised by the Times' lack of insight. For a so-called 'liberal' newspaper, they don't seem to quite 'get' the liberal point of view.
I cancelled my subscription 3 years ago... and, true to form, the call my house once a day to see if I'll renew (every day).
They call you every day? I would complain. That is harrassment.
They do! And, it is harrassment... told them to put us on the 'do not call' list. Apparently, that's just for show. Thank the gods for caller ID.
Hey, Greek- I'm moving to LA in the summer. Any good papers or news sites down there?
Mr L- Welcome aboard! KTLK and KPFK are two 'progressive' radio stations I like to frequent... helps whatever commute you have. Also, the LA Weekly is always a good source for 'goings-on' (very liberal and free). LA CityBeat isn't bad.
As Someone Who Works In Telemarketing I Can Tell You The Do Not Call List Is Not Inforced. As Usual The Government Only Goes After Individuals. Never Business
1. Is this really "conservative misinformation"? Did anyone actually read the article? It is very unflattering of Bush and Gonzalez. MMFA is really stretching on this one to find something negative. "Question 49 ... Question 50"??
2. Greekfurnace: "For a so-called 'liberal' newspaper, they don't seem to quite 'get' the liberal point of view."
Are you kidding? The liberal bias at the Times is very well documented. The are undoubtedly a very liberal newspaper.
My 2 cents. Thank you.
The LA Times is liberal the same way you are, Shoes: in your dreams.
No reach involved: once again, MMFA cites the misinformation (LIES, for those who don't speak "liberal"); and even explains that the best damned lies still didn't get the Repugnants a plurality of the votes on those two questions.
As to the article, yeah, I read it, then I opened my mental trash can and threw it away; although not as pointedly biased as those two questions, it certainly was not an impressive piece of journalism.
I don't read the L.A. Times but after reading your post I can't help but wonder if you are angry because they are not liberal? Why should they be?
I am hardly angry that the LA Times is not liberal. What does make me angry is the utter lack of journalism or integrity, not only in the LAT, but across the entire span of the Corporate Media. Were journalism or integrity the essence of our media, I would likely be mostly silent about MORA, and the evil that is immortal, the very concept of Corporation as "person".
I used to read the LA Times virtually everyday. Its a fair newspaper. What bugs me isnt that they arent liberal, but that they are continually referred to as BEING liberal. My friends and I used to refer to it as Pravda West. The San Berdino Sun was much better at giving ALL the facts if any were unflattering to power. Yet, still, people pretend it is a liberal mouthpiece. THAT is what bugs me.
"MMFA cites the misinformation" ... Really? Unless I missed something, MMFA didn't cite "misinformation," only that the Times supposedly committed the crime of "omitt[ing] the Democratic position."
Representing only one side (and the false side, at that) as the whole of the matter is by definition, misinformation (LIE to you, obviously not a liberal, and likely not bilingual). Thus, "cited the misinformation . . . " (again, actually the LIE).
Pick up an LA Times and read it. It ain't something I'd call conservative... but, this 'liberal' moniker is unwarranted. The Times flaps any way the wind blows.
"[LA Times is] undoubtedly a very liberal newspaper."
Owned by the Tribune Co., publishers of the Chgo. Tribune, a paper which hasn't endorsed a Democratic candidate for president since the 19th century.
Furthermore, it isn't a requirement that conservative misinformation come from a conservative newspaper, genius.
3 problems with your comment:
1. "publishers of the Chicago Tribune" : Uhhh. We're not talking about the Tribune; we're talking about the LA Times. Nonetheles ...
2. A paper's editorial slant can't be encapsulated just by who it endorses for President! If you look at the Tribune, it's not quite as liberal as the LA Times, but it's still liberal.
3. "it isn't a requirement that conservative misinformation come from a conservative newspaper, genius" : I never said it had to be.
"it's still liberal" in spite of all those republican presidential endorsements. how does shoes know? why, it's because he told you so. any more questions?
"it's liberal ... it's because he told you so" ... No. I said, Read the paper. Here. See for yourself.
read this: they endorsed bush twice.
---"Read the [Chicago Tribune]. See for yourself."-Shoes89---
Yes, as you can see by the link Shoes89 provides, there's this very "liberal" headline on the very "liberal" newspaper's web site today:
"Building Obama's money machine: An indicted Chicago political insider provided the seed money for Barack Obama's first campaign in 1995."
Now, thanks to Shoes89, we've "seen for ourselves" just how very, very liberal the Chicago Tribune is.
"Uhhh. We're not talking about the Tribune; we're talking about the LA Times."
When you're talking about the LA Times, you ARE talking about the Tribune Co., uhhh, genius, because they OWN the Times.
As another person pointed out to you, the LA Times endorsed Bush. Twice. 'Liberal paper' my foot.
You're living in a right-wing fantasy world (and definitely not in Chicago) regarding the Chicago Tribune being a "liberal" newspaper. That is truly, truly beyond laughable, and shows even further that you don't know what you're talking about.
dave, i was refering to the chicago tribune endorsing bush twice, in case you meant me. maybe i wasn't clear.
The Los Angeles Times are warmongers, for backing Bush like this.
Do you have any other thoughts on the subject?
No. By not giving the Democrat side the Los Angeles Times are supporting Bush, and therefore the war, which makes them warmongers.
The "Democrat" side?
Yeah the Democrat side, like MMFA said "LA Times poll question, article gave Bush's argument against war timetable, but not Democratic argument for it" I assume MMFA meant the Democrat party. You know Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid gang.
Just "Democrat?" Not "DemocRAT," or "Democrap" or "Dhimmicrat?"
Yeah, Democrat. What is the problem?
I've been intrigued by Duncan's cryptic and minimalist posts, thinking there might be something under the surface there.
What's up Duncan? I know you thank God for Nancy Pelosi, you think Bush is a warmonger, and you dig Keith Olbermann, but you seem very shy about going any further.
Is the strange turn in the posts this week about school being out for spring break?
By giving only the ReNAMBLAcan side they show their bias.
This is an incredibly weak argument by Brian Levy. He blares in the headline that the democrat party's argument for a timetable for withdrawal was not included.
The only evidence of a democrat plan cited by Levy..."There are other options unmentioned in the question: Congress could also send Bush another funding bill that continues to reflect the will of Congress and the public for commencing redeployment from Iraq."
It appears that Levy forgot to read his own headline...or maybe it's true...that's all they have to offer...announcing a date certain for declaring defeat.
"announcing a date certain for declaring defeat"
Defeat?
Saddam is gone, as are his sons, and there are no WMD's. The rationale for conflict set forth in '03 by Bush are now either neutralized or never existed. Major combat operations have ended, "Mission Accomplished", America and her allies have prevailed, victory is ours, the war is over.
Take it up with Brian J Levy. He's the one that complained that the democrats argument was not published in the article.
His only "argument" was to send Pres.Bush the same vetoed bill...with a date certain to declare defeat.
wesley, we find ourselves in the situation we do because there are too many non-thinking cliche-accepting automatons such as yourself. all you do is spout the swill that the right wing noise machine puts out. you bring it all down to setting a date for certain defeat. and yet the real truth is that there is no winning here, not in the sense you define it. your side has been wrong on every single aspect of this war, from the beginning. all the predictions, all the assurances that we've turned the corner and things are improving. you are one of the people listening to john mccain tell you how great things are while he strolls the market surrounded by soldiers and helicopters. the fact is that a majority of republican voters still support bush and give him chance number 348,902 to pull the "peaceful democratic iraq" rabbit out of the hat. the fact that your delusions have failed to materialize after 4 years of a situation that only gets worse, is testament to the saying that you can fool some [a considerable amount of them republicans] of the people all the time. continue howling at the moon. it's all to the same effect.
So. are you saying we should leave, turning it over to Kookie Mookie and just set back and watch the ethnic cleansing (Sunnis and Kurds)?
Are you under the impression that what you say is not going on over there? They exploded a bomb in the freaking parliament today, for Christ's sake -- in the Green Zone, with humvees and Strykers and metal detectors all around. We are not stopping anything.
oscar, are you saying we stay there forever and just accept what's going on now? if not, what are you saying?
Thats the point Congress decides how to spend the money so they can send another bill in opposition to the Adminstrations policy of getting as many Americans killed as possible.
That is simple headed rationale if I ever heard it.
We are in a war against Islamofacism. If we walk out of Iraq then the Iranians and their surrogates will take over and the bloodletting will be much worse. Do you think things will be better if the U.S. pulls out prematurely? Do you honestly think the terrorism will stop?
I have to laugh at all the uproar over Imus and his mysogynist comments. Anyone remember how fanatical Muslims treat their women? Does anyone remember Sharia law? How they treat Christians? Jews? Different Islamic sects? Does anyone remember how they use innocent children to kill innocent children? How they cowardly blow up their own in order to ferment their quasi-religious point of view? Do you realize these people are as bad or worse than the Nazis in their hatred toward people they consider inferior?
Maybe you do and you'd still like to cut and run, but I'd rather not put the future of my children in the hands of defeatists and appeasers.
My comments were intended to reply to Pete not Wesley.
"That is simple headed rationale if I ever heard it."
It's not my rationale, it's that of the Bush Administration, or at least it was until the CPA screwed things up and let Iraq dissolve into a civil war.
"Do you think things will be better if the U.S. pulls out prematurely? Do you honestly think the terrorism will stop?"
Nope, and the threat of terrorism will remain regardless of how much longer the U.S. stays in Iraq and regardless of how many more Americans die in Iraq. We could literally be trying to keep Iraq's ethnic groups from fighting for decades. We are merely exasperating hatred that has existed for years and isn't going away any time soon.
Rightwingers, it appears, are never going to learn the lessons of the Middle East. The more we meddle and the bigger our presence, the more hatred is bred and the fewer friends we have. Too bad the whole thing sits atop of a pot of black gold, otherwise we could ignore it just like we ignore Darfur.
Attempting to reshape any Middle Eastern country in our image for the sake of steady oil supply is a fool's errand.
We more or less walked halfway out of Afghanistan so we could topple the regime in Iraq. There were most definitely terrorists and their supporters in Afghanistan. There has not been any conclusive evidence that terrorists were working in Iraq.
Iraq's regime was toppled. It was the only thing preventing civil war. They've got their civil war in Iraq now, thanks to us. The Taliban has rebuilt itself in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. They would not have had the means to do this if we had pressed on. Instead we made the focus of the "War on Terror" Iraq, which had nothing at all to do with terrorism.
Please tell us what does victory look like? When will we know that we've won? And how many tours should one person have to pull? Many are on their third deployment. Is there a military solution?
I think they have a vision of what Iraq should look like but none of them know how to achieve it. Their current plan is to have the troops occupy Iraq until the vision miraculously appears. They are prepared to stay there; I mean they prepared to have other people stay there no matter how long it takes.
"We are in a war against Islamofacism."
- anotheramerican / Thursday April 12, 2007 04:56:15 PM EST
We are at war with Iraqis who don't want their country occupied.
That is exactly right... and an excellent point. The neocon/conservative imperialists have decided that it's okay to invade another country under false pretenses under the guise of ridding the world of fascism. Wonder what the Iraqis or other inhabitants of the Middle East think about the US? AA and Wesley above are myopic at best. That's my opinion.
It's an old tune...in the 20th century it was to rid the world of communism, they said, as they shot nuns and napalmed children. Now they got the moslem bogeyman to wave at everyone, to justify their mass murders. All to protect civilization from the barbarian, the war criminals say, over and over again.
"Do you realize these people are as bad or worse than the Nazis"
If this is as bad or worse than World War II (a truly laughable claim), then were is the call to arms? Why is our National Guard carrying the fight in this All-Important and Desperate Struggle? We have a shortage of ready troops. Why isn't there a draft?? Why are the rich getting tax cuts during this Nazi-like Crisis? Why does our dear leader tell us all to "go shopping", and that we are making enough of a sacrifice just watching the war on tv? When exactly did these worse-than-Nazis invade us or our allies, or attack us with tanks, missiles and air power?
Now, Dave, be careful where you tread: the prescription is that we watch only sanitized fragments of the war on TV, for if we were ever to see the impact of our occupation, and feel fully the fury of the war WE bring to Iraq, or the cost to our own (coffins, anyone? or even extensive video of maimed survivors? or the nightmares springing from killing without belief in the cause?) we would demand that our media report fully, and that our Repugnant overlords vacate the premises both here and in Iraq.
Islamofacism.
cut and run,
defeatists
appeasers.
4 biscuits for AA.
Hey, that sounds just like my son counting "treats for tricks" for his Doberman?
OH!
So you'd rather send your children into a war crime to kill moslems for your own prejudices? Good parent you are.
I'm pretty sure he'd rather send someone else's children. But if he did mean he's willing to send his own children, then he's got integrity.
You DEFINE simplemindedness. Islamofascism is an ignorant term with no meaning. If you are referring to Islamic extremism. Iraq was the most secular Islamic country in the region and was NEVER part of any war on either terrorism nor Islamic extremism. We GET that you are committed to the lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy but the American people have rejected that policy. YOU may yearn to see people die ENDLESSLY but most people dont. As for your crystal ball about what will happen in Iraq you guys have been wrong about every single thing you have ever predicted about Iraq why should we take your new assertion straight from the I Ching seriously? Even if true lets stop with the pretense you care anything about the Iraqi people who overwhelmingly want us GONE. Its ludicrous to tell them. We care so much about you that we are going to stay and help you no matter WHAT YOU WANT. Obviously you are a bunch of childern and dont know whats best for you so WE will take care of you and couldnt care less what you think about it. Your tireless rationales for continuing the killing are worthless. Just because you cant imagine not continuing with war, more glorious war, doesnt mean it makes any sense. It is CLEAR we are only adding to the equation of violence there. Its time for the Iraqis to sort out their own problems. What is happening now is exactly what the liberals TOLD Bush was going to happen and now the violence monster is out of the box, there is nothing we can do to stop it. You guys didnt care BEANS about it before the invasion and you only care now because its an EXCUSE to continue with the warmonger policies that just make you all hot.
The problem with the defeat/victory frame is that "victory," as defined by the Administration, is impossible for the U.S. to achieve.
Are we capable of imposing "an Iraq that can defend and sustain itself" from without? We cannot achieve this on the battlefield - it is obvious that there must be an Iraqi government to do the defending and sustaining. Do we have any indication that there is an Iraqi government equal to that task? If not, how many troops could we possibly "surge" to create one out of thin air?
If the Administration's own definition of victory is literally impossible, why is it that the anti-war movement's realism is somehow calling for defeat?
I disagree with your post...and agree with anotheramerican's post above.
However, that aside, Brian J. Levy owes you for doing his work. Even though I disagree...it was well stated.
Where is the Bin Sultan airbase that was the primary thorn in OBL's side? Why does OBL now have a training ground for all the new recruits dumbaya is making for him? Why is our government spying on us when they let OBL skip out at Tora Bora?
Hey Wes if you would start paying attention you would realize we have ALREADY lost 3 times thanks to dumbaya
I guess you could say the Democrats simply want to advance in a different direction. :-)
Seriously, I don't know how soon the Iraqi's can take over and can't say for certain that they ever will. But we cannot abandon these people to the truly barbaric and murderous islamofacists. the fanatical regime in Iran is fermenting the bombings in Iraq in order to defeat the U.S.
I sincerely believe the Iranians with Nukes are way more dangerous than the Soviet Union ever was. We cannot leave Iraq to be taken over by the Iranians. Does anyone doubt tThey'll use the withdrawal of the U.S. as a springboard for further islamofacist terrorism?
You may not like it, (neither do I,) but I believe a this is the showdown. If we lose here, it'll only be worse later.
Another American? Since when did an AMERICAN advocate occupation without end, and without purpose, other than the continued sacrifice of both our troops and our treasury (unless you count getting a million or so Iraqis dead, as a purpose).
Again, you are assuming it's our fight to win or lose. It's a tribal, sectarian, multipartite clusterf*ck that we are not, as far as I can tell, doing anything to slow or stop. They are fighting each other, and we are just getting in their way.
We can get out now or we can get out later. We are not, even by stretching our military to (and beyond) the breaking point, going to make Iraq into Switzerland, or even Lebanon. No matter how much manure we dig through, there will be no pony.
The only question is how many more Americans have to die before we leave.
If we lose here, it'll only be worse later. - anotheramerican
What if we lose due to staying there?
Take out the islam references and put in communists and jews and you'd be reciting a Hitler speech.
The Iraqis would no more accept Iranian occupation of Iraq then American occupation. The Iranians arent Arabs and racial politics has always been big in the middle east. Iran doesnt look to be near as big a problem as you portray it. They were moderating quite well until they were radicalized by OUR invasion of Iraq. They had offered at least two deals on their nuclear program. Even IF it is a nuclear WEAPONS program which, while likely, we have no proof of, that would still be a decade away. Negotiations could easily take care of this problem. The hardliners lost the last election big and the people of Iran have never been as anti American as they are portrayed. There was a HUGE demonstration of sympathy in Iran for Americans after 9/11 then again on its first anniversary. Rafsanjani is a moderate he won the election as the Supreme leader which has all the real executive power in Iran. Iran hasnt invaded anyone since the Achemeniad dynasty several centuries before Christ. They arent anywhere near as dangerous as the Soviets were. And why, when you rightwingers have been SO wrong, SO often about Iraq should I listen to the same rhetoric about Iran? When you guys get HALF as many predictions right as you have gotten wrong the last four years get back to us. Until then you sound like that weird ranting uncle no one pays attention to at family gatherings.
When are you going to do your tour in Iraq? (One silly post deserves another.)
Hey, you stole my line!
Wesley - face it. You have no idea what 'victory' or 'failure' means in regard to Iraq. Your plan - THE plan by this administration - is to remain indefinitely in Iraq, all the while convincing yourself that 'victory' is inevitable, all the while supporting whatever nefarious goings-on we (including you) are not privy to... at the hands of these neocon clowns. Congratulations. You've proven nothing.
No its not a weak argument. The DemocratIC plan is to bring the troops home and to oppose the ReNAMBLAcan plan known as lets get as many Americans killed as possible. The DemocratIC plan is to oppose the warmonger partys war on Americans youth.
There are plans and contingencies, and history besides. There was an excellent link here recently of a study of recent and ongoing civil wars. I can't pull up all the data here for you, but historically when the irritation (us in this case) leaves, the insurgency wither's. Estimates are of continueing civil war for a good decade. We should be standing by to offer aid to folks who are stable. Let them use the aid in the way that makes sense to the population recieving that aid. Be friendly and respectful. You never know they might regain some respect for us in a decade or so of honest dealing. Much stranger things have happenned.
eweston, your ideas seem quite reasonable.
TO SOMEONE BLINDED BY THE APPEASERS TO THE POINT WHERE HE CANNOT SEE THE TERRIFYING THREAT OF ISLAMOFASCISM!!!!!!!
Sorry, it's been a crazy week here.
Democrats need to catch up to the public...
According to this LA Times poll, a plurality (45%) would be OK with Congress "withholding funding" to force Bush to agree to a withdrawal timetable. Compare that with the 43% who think the Dems should fold when Bush makes good on his veto threat.
So are Democratic "leaders" willing to do this? Of course not. They're picking option supported by fewer people, and plan to respond to Bush's vero by handing Bush his $100 billion, no strings attached (according to Sen. Carl Levin).
And even the suggestion that they might withhold funding is treated as the basest insult, by groups like Media Matters - for example:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704120002
Since they took power in November, the Democrats have been proclaiming, one hand over their hearts, that they would never, never even think of withholding funding. Meanwhile, the public doesn't seem to see any problem with doing just that.
When, I wonder, are these people going to catch up with their constituents?
Senator Levin has been hearing all day from his constituents, and I believe hearing rather vociferous disagreement with the statement previously issued. I suspect that he will be somewhat more supportive of his party and those constituents in opposing Bungle's power play, beginning about 6:00 A.M. EDT today.
Yeah, even this article doesn't look at what the Democrats are actually doing, actually saying, what the recent war crimes funding bill actually says....it's all about how they are PERCEIVED to be anti-war. It's not about the realities, about how the bill gives more money for the war than asked for, or how the bill has NO mechanisms to stop the war. It's all about the ILLUSION of opposition, not the reality of collaboration.
Republicans and Democrats and the union of the Two Parties. Both waging war on peace and humanity in the name of absolute power.
Here too