NY Times poll found majority favors withdrawal plan resembling Democrats' -- but Vieira didn't report that
SUMMARY: NBC's Meredith Vieira told viewers that a New York Times/CBS News poll found that "76 percent of Americans say they'd only withdraw some troops, keeping enough to train Iraqis and fight Al Qaeda or they would keep the same number of troops in Iraq until the country is stabilized." But Vieira did not report that the same poll question found that 78 percent of respondents favor either withdrawing all troops from Iraq (22 percent) or leaving troops "to train Iraqi forces, conduct raids against terrorist groups and protect American diplomats" (56 percent), a position resembling proposals by leading Democrats.
Discussing recent polls on U.S. troop levels in Iraq, during the September 11 edition of NBC's Today, co-anchor Meredith Vieira told viewers that "a New York Times/CBS News poll found that the public may have more patience than many assumed." Vieira reported that the poll found that "76 percent of Americans say they'd only withdraw some troops, keeping enough to train Iraqis and fight Al Qaeda or they would keep the same number of troops in Iraq until the country is stabilized." But Vieira did not report that the same poll question found that 78 percent of respondents favor either withdrawing all troops from Iraq (22 percent) or leaving troops "to train Iraqi forces, conduct raids against terrorist groups and protect American diplomats" (56 percent), a position resembling proposals by leading Democrats.
From the New York Times/CBS News poll:
81. Looking ahead in Iraq, if you had to choose, which of these comes closest to your position: 1. The United States should withdraw all of its troops within the next year regardless of what happens in Iraq after the troops leave. OR 2. The United States should withdraw some troops but leave some troops to train Iraqi forces, conduct raids against terrorist groups and protect American diplomats. OR 3. The United States should keep the same number of troops in Iraq as are there now and continue to fight until there is a stable democracy in Iraq?
Withdraw all troops
Withdraw some troops
Keep same number
DK/NA
9/4-8/07
22
56
20
2
By combining the respondents who favor withdrawing some or keeping the same number of troops in order to reach a figure of 76 percent and support her statement that "the public may have more patience than many assumed," Vieira ignored the Times/CBS poll's finding that a majority of respondents -- 56 percent -- favor a troop withdrawal plan that calls for the retention of some troops for particular functions, resembling several Democratic proposals.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) introduced legislation in February that would call for a gradual redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq, cap the number of troops in Iraq at January 2007 levels and provide for de-authorizing the war unless the president certifies that:
a phased redeployment of United States military forces from Iraq has begun ... including the transition of United States forces in Iraq to the limited presence and mission of -- (A) training Iraqi security forces; (B) providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces; (C) protecting United States personnel and infrastructure; and (D) participating in targeted counter-terrorism activities.
Similarly, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) introduced legislation in January that would require the redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq to begin "not later than May 1, 2007." According to Obama's bill, redeployment of U.S. forces would be "subject to the exceptions for retention of forces for force protection, counter-terrorism operations, training of Iraqi forces, and other purposes." Moreover, on July 18, Clinton and Obama also voted in support of an amendment proposed by Democratic Sens. Carl Levin (MI) and Jack Reed (RI) that called for a "reduction" of U.S. forces in Iraq to begin within 120 days and also stipulated that the United States maintain a "limited presence" of troops there to protect U.S. and coalition infrastructure, train Iraqi security forces, and conduct counterterrorism operations.
From the September 11 edition of NBC's Today:
VIEIRA: As a debate rages in Washington over what's next in Iraq, both Congress and the president will be taking a hard look at where the American people stand. Now according to the most recent USA Today/Gallup Poll, 60 percent of Americans now say the United States should set a timetable to withdraw forces and, quote, "stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq," end quote.
Fifty-seven percent say the Iraq government is not capable of reaching political benchmarks, but only one in five want all U.S. troops removed as rapidly as possible. In fact, a New York Times/CBS News poll found the public may have more patience than many assumed. Seventy-six percent of Americans say they'd only withdraw some troops, keeping enough to train Iraqis and fight Al Qaeda or they would keep the same number of troops in Iraq until the country is stabilized.
And over the last two months, the percentage of Americans who believe the surge is working has nearly doubled from 19 to 35 percent.
So, you want Viera to report the poll numbers in the context of how they align with a plan resembling the one favored by Democrats? That seems to suggest you'd like Viera to report the numbers in a biased fashion as to their favorability towards Democrats, as opposed to reporting them independent of any political party?
Nah.....
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Gee Tommy if it weren't for that "strawman" you keep at the end of your tongue, you'd have nothing to say!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
No Tommy, what we would like is for her (and all news orginizations for that matter) to REPORT THE FACTS, instead of putting the Bush slant on everything. Leaving out these details make it sound as if the public supports this wretched war. Facts are, they don't.
I don't see where she said anything factually inaccurate, in fact, I don't see where MMFA says she said anything factually inaccurate. She just didn't cloak it they way they wanted her too, that's the beef here.
She reported half the facts--the ones that favored BushCo. I thought I made that opinion (fact) clear.
"But Vieira did not report that the same poll question found that 78 percent of respondents favor either withdrawing all troops from Iraq (22 percent) or leaving troops "to train Iraqi forces, conduct raids against terrorist groups and protect American diplomats" (56 percent), a position resembling proposals by leading Democrats."--MMFA
What she DID report reads fine when I lean to my right.
And she does actually report the fact that MMFA and you want - she says that one if five wants all troops removed.......that just wasn't bold in this piece. So she was completely accurate in her statement.
one in five, not if.
Nope, she combined two figures to make it sounds like a vast majority want us to stay. The way the poll reads, the middle number (56 or 58%, I forget) wants a relatively smaller number to stay to train, conduct some raids against terrorists, and guard diplomats. I can't imagine that number being anything close to the 160,000 troops we have there now. Not even half that.
What she should have done was just read the poll results as is, rather than trying to do some sort of half-assed analysis that totally horked up what the poll actually says.
No, she accurately reported the poll results....because they didn't align with yours and MMFA's agenda, it's misinformation, or furthering some conservative agenda? No it is not.
No, she didn't. If you believe what she said is factual, then it is also to say: 100% of those who responded to our poll responded to our poll.
She put together numbers of several diferent answers to make it sound larger--"76%"
The poll stated: Withdraw all-22%, withdraw some-56%, Keep same-20%.
What she said was a dishonest reading of the poll. We see this type of thing all the time on FOX "News."
She could have said that the glas was half full, or half empty. One way she pushes the Bush agenda, and the other way she pushes the 'end the war as soon as possible' agenda.
It's not okay with me that she pushes the Bush agenda instead of being nonpartisan and telling both sides of the story. It's not okay with Media Matters either. It's okay with Tommy. Surprise.
I'd have been fine with her simply reading the poll results, and leaving out the slant. I'm not saying that she porposely slanted this, but it doesn't matter--it WAS slanted.
None of this really matters, anyway. We'll be there until Bush's cronies figure out how to steal the oil, or until we elect a Democratic President. As long as Bush is squatting in the White House, his Iraq disaster will continue to suck the blood out of the United States.
With all the no-bid contracts going to BushCo and Cheney's Halliburton, who needs oil? They're making better money off the backs of the U.S. public right now than if their pumps were singing the Beverly Hillbillies song.
Well, you have a point. If you haven't already seen it, watch "Iraq for Sale". Among the outrages pointed out, contractors are charging the Army $100 per load to do laundry for the troops. Not a bad concession, if you can get it.
I have a feeling that our expenses in Iraq are only beginning. The brilliant plan in Anbar, apparently, is to hire the insurgents to work for us. We're now paying them $300 a month to be policemen. I guess, if we hire everybody in Iraq, that will reduce the obscene unemployment rate, and starve the Al Qaeda recruiters. How much will that cost?
Whenever someone suggests Universal Healthcare in our country, conservatives raise hell and refuse to spend their tax dollars on such socialist crap. Well, I wonder how they'll feel about creating a socialist Make Work program in Iraq...using their tax dollars?
My bet is that they'll give us sob stories that anyone against these Iraqi programs just don't care about Iraqis. I firmly believe that if Hillary or Obama are elected, Republican's will be shouting for them to get us out of that wretched war.
Funny, the "Party of personal responsibility" is always the first to blame someone else, or send someone else's kids to war.
$100 a load for laundry?
Man, things sure have changed. clean uniforms were a foreign concept in 1969.
Really? Which country were you fighting for?
JUST KIDDING sorry, couldn't resist.
Yeah but as usual, you liberals fail to point out that the contractor uses the extra-fancy Bounce Static-Cling sheets, which really increases the cost per load. Typical of Liberals to leave that out.
So you dont think our troops deserve springtime freshness or softness? Why do you hate them? Why do you hate America? Why do you want the terrorists to win?
As to the question of polls, imagine if a poll had shown that 10 percent of Americans want the troops pulled out tomorrow, while 70 percent wanted them pulled out next week. Reporting that "only ten percent of Americans want the troops pulled out tomorrow" would be factually correct, but would anyone deny bias if this was the end of the report?
Oh sorry, the answer is yes. Tommy would.
Tommy, 5:53 ET:
"So, you want Viera to report the poll numbers in the context of how they align with a plan resembling the one favored by Democrats? That seems to suggest you'd like Viera to report the numbers in a biased fashion as to their favorability towards Democrats, as opposed to reporting them independent of any political party?"
Tommy, 6:16 EST:
"No, she accurately reported the poll results....because they didn't align with yours and MMFA's agenda, it's misinformation, or furthering some conservative agenda? No it is not."
Interesting. When the two numbers are combined the way Viera does in her report, Tommy says "she accurately reported the results".
Yet if the numbers were to be combined in a manner equally legitimate, Tommy says "you'd like Viera to report the numbers in a biased fashion".
Care to explain, Tommy?
How is combining the number of those who want to withdraw some troops with the number of those who want to keep the level the same less biased than combining the number of those who want to withdraw some troops with those who want to withdraw all troops?
My point exactly, you made it clearer than me, thanks.
Tommy knows that he's full of it with these threads. He thinks he can sow doubt in the minds of lowly liberals by using thinly veiled fallacies that sound sort of fair. Tommy, why is this interesting to you? Do you think you're changing anyone's mind that the mainstream media has been overly helpful for the Bush agenda?
Lowly liberals? Speak for yourself, I believe you are committing a thinly veiled insult at other liberals here who may not be nearly as lowly as you are.
You should apologize.
No Tommy that wasn't veiled at all. It was more of a blatant insult directed at you. But nice try as usual using a straw man to misdirect someone's comment. Yeah, I was insulting liberals. I guess it COULD be seen that way if you squint your eyes and hyperventilate for ten minutes. Good demonstration of your usual misdirection Nicely fitting too because it's this very dishonest method of communitcation which I feel makes you deserving of insults in the first place.
Do you not get this Tommy? You say, 'I believe you are.' blah blah. But you don't really believe this at all. It's either that or you're not very bright. But you are at least that bright. Anyone here can see that. But you're only bright enough to pick up a few cheap rhetorical tricks that work on poeple who don't know what your agenda is. You don't seem bright enough to realize that if you have to continually be dishonest to try to make your point, it may say something about the point you're trying to make.
So, did I miss something or did Tommy reply to a comment on my question without acknowledging my question to him?
Got an explanation, Tommy? Why is A+B a "biased fashion" but B+C an "accurate reporting" of the numbers?
Tommy rarely answers questions. His bosses prefer him to try to keep the confusion level high by making statements that purposefully distract bloggers from the real issues.
Corrupt Republicans Advancing Politics (CRAP) ;-)
The angle of this story was clearly the 'Patience' thing. The public may have more patience than assumed. Supporting the Bush plan to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely. They seem to be trying to find a way to use the stats to make it seem like a majority supports Bush's plan. They ignore the fact that it could easily be seen in their own numbers that a majority supports versions that have been put out by Democrats. It's blatantly obvious that this was the impression given. Without a discerning eye for stats and a hefty load of skepticism most who saw this report would think that a major poll showed that a majority of Americans have the 'patience' to support Bush's plan. You'd have to be blind, confused (or dishonest Tommy) not to see that.
If she wanted to talk about the version that the most people supported, it would be the 56% plus the 22%. That's the "Media Matters" version, or the Democratically biased version. It's just as valid as the version she quoted, but it's not fair and accurate and impartial.
That liberal media bias that doesn't exist sure is funny sometimes.
I didn't think they got into this kind of issue, to such a complicated degree, on the television show being cited.
What percentage of Americans favor Troop withdrawal under what conditions in Iraq "until the country is stabilized"?
That's what they're getting into on that television show now?
That's awful serious stuff.
I was under the impression they stuck mostly to stuff about pop culture and movies and books, and Harry Potter...
How do Americans feel about bringing Troops home from Iraq?
That's what they're asking contestants these days, on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire"?
I mean, that is the television gameshow that meredith viera is gameshow-host of, isn't it?
What next, we're going to have regis philbin's opinion of Gen. Petraeus' testimony before Congress?
Who WantsTo Be A Millionaire?
Every Halliburton stockholder.
Hey, TheRick, you might want to check the financial records of the division of Halliburton that's doing work in Iraq before making a comment like that. It kinda makes you look "misinformed". And we all know this site is all about stopping the "misinformation".
Even though what I said was an attempt at being tounge in cheek, it is important to point out that I didn't say every Halliburton stockholder WAS a millionaire. Please read what I wrote again.
I can't prove that every Halliburton stockholder wants to be a millionaire, but it doesn't seem too far fetched. No misinformation here, and I think even Tommy would defend me on this one.
I got it, and appreciated it, even if that guy who responded to your comment was put off or whatever...
And it's true, that the greed of defense contractors feeding at the public trough (because there are few pig troughs so many billions deep, as to make a mere millionare look like a mouse)...
It's true, the greed of Halliburton keeps U.S. Troops being sacrificed in Iraq, for no reason whatsoever of National Security to the American People.
I'd have thought the response you got, would have been better directed at my post, for saying that the television show being cited was "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire", when it of course was not.
It must have been easier to see my tongue in cheek, than it was to see yours.
But I got it, and appreciated it.
Wheeeew! For a moment there I thought I was typing in another language...
:-)
So they're going to use a poll to legitamize continued US occupation of Iraq under a Democrat president? I wonder if the question to withdraw immediately was even asked. Seems people real eager to sell us on the "redeployment" version of imperial occupation.
Troops. ALL troops. Home. NOW!
Your head line reads "NY Times poll found majority favors withdrawal plan resembling Democrats...." Tell me MM, would a NT Times poll ever favor anything else...ever? lol
Is he a Wiz, or just a Bore?
Your head line (sic) reads "NY Times poll found majority favors withdrawal plan resembling Democrats...." Tell me MM, would a NT (sic) Times poll ever favor anything else...ever?
Apparently you aren't familiar with the search feature at the top of the page. Go ahead, scroll back up, and type in "NY Times Iraq," then wait patiently as more than 700 items come up. Now, read them all carefully, and you'll see an interesting pattern taking shape. The NY Times was one of the main cheerleaders for our getting into the war in the first place (Judith Miller, anyone?), and has been consistently out of touch on the issue since.
lol
That sound you hear is the rest of us laughing at you.
Thanx for showing us your colors ;-)
Thanks for showing us your IQ
Uh, Bore, It's actually pretty well established with anyone who has an ounce of intellectual honesty that the Times was one of the tools used to sell the war. You're still responding to the bs rap that they set this up with. For years Limbaugh et all have been hammering the line that the Times is 'liberally biased.' This perception made them a perfect target for some Rovian manipulations. The administration fed them false information which they regurgitated. That way when they were selling the war and trying to appear credible they would quote their own words from the Times. Some very famous cases of Cheney doing this. You'd think the righties would jump up and say, "Hey Dick, I thought the Times wasn't a credible source!" But of course the trick is quoting someone you've already set up as the 'other side' so that while all you are doing is quoting your own lie it will be seen as Both Sides of the Story! It's really not that complicated of a trick and anyone paying attention knows that this was done. Your rap on the Times was always baloney and now it's a few years out of date too. Cheers.
Noone has ever called me to be polled. But my patience gets very thin when I find out on the same day Gen Petraeus reports to Congress, in diplomatic language, that things are " progressing well ", seven of our sons were killed The shock and Awe campaign has turned into a " slog and wait " campaign. I actually can't point to the policy maker in this admionistration.