Wash. Post's Murray cited flawed poll, repeated GOP claim that "the public has grown more patient on Iraq"
SUMMARY: In a Washington Post article, Shailagh Murray wrote: "GOP Senate offices circulated the results of a Gallup poll released this week that showed 54 percent of those surveyed think [Gen. David] Petraeus's plan for removing troops is the right pace, or even too quick." However, this poll question did not explain to respondents how many troops Petraeus' plan called for removing or over what period of time this withdrawal would take place. Other polling shows that when respondents are told specifically what Petraeus recommended, the results are dramatically different.
In a September 22 Washington Post article, staff writer Shailagh Murray asserted that "Republicans sounded emboldened" during the September 21 Senate debate on the Iraq war and that they argued "[t]he public has grown more patient on Iraq ... after a report last week from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus." Murray later wrote: "GOP Senate offices circulated the results of a Gallup poll released this week that showed 54 percent of those surveyed think Petraeus's plan for removing troops is the right pace, or even too quick," adding, "One-third of those surveyed viewed the withdrawal as moving too slowly." However, this poll question did not explain to respondents how many troops Petraeus' plan called for removing or over what period of time this withdrawal would take place. Other polling shows that when respondents are told specifically what Petraeus recommended, the results are dramatically different. Further, the USA Today/Gallup poll's full findings do not support Republicans' assertion -- uncritically reported by Murray -- that Americans have "grown more patient on Iraq."
In a September 14 Washington Post article, staff writers Peter Baker and Karen DeYoung reported that President Bush endorsed Petraeus' recommendation to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq -- a withdrawal of "roughly 21,700 troops" by the summer of 2008, according to the Post, "starting with 5,700 troops by Christmas" of 2007, which would "return the overall force in Iraq to close to where it was at the beginning of" 2007.
But the USA Today/Gallup poll, which was conducted September 14-16 and had a margin of error of 3 percentage points, did not provide respondents with information on the size of the withdrawal that Petraeus called for and Bush endorsed, nor did it explain the period of time over which this withdrawal is scheduled to take place. Instead, the poll requested that respondents answer two questions about the plan based on what they "may have heard or read about" it. Respondents were first asked:
As you may know, George W. Bush is adopting General Petraeus' recommendations for future troop levels in Iraq. Based on what you have heard or read about this plan, do you think General Petraeus' plan calls for -- too few U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq, the right amount, or too many U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq?
The poll found that 36 percent of respondents said the plan called for "too few" troops to be withdrawn, 43 percent said it was the "right amount," and 9 percent said the plan pulls out "too many" troops. As a follow-up question, respondents were asked:
Still thinking about this plan, do you think General Petraeus' plan calls for -- U.S. troops to be withdrawn too slowly from Iraq, withdrawals to occur at the right pace, or U.S. troops to be withdrawn too quickly from Iraq?
In response, 33 percent said "General Petraeus' plan" called for troops to be withdrawn "too slowly," while 42 percent said withdrawals would "occur at the right place," and 12 percent said it called for them to be withdrawn "too quickly." In her article, Murray reported that the poll "showed 54 percent of those surveyed think Petraeus's plan for removing troops is the right pace, or even too quick," but did not note that almost three times as many respondents said the plan will withdraw troops "too slowly" from Iraq than "too quickly."
By contrast, a CBS News poll conducted September 14-16 provided respondents with additional context regarding Bush and Petraeus' withdrawal plan and found that a greater percentage said the proposal removes too few troops. The poll asked: "President Bush has proposed reducing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to pre-surge levels by the summer of 2008. Do you think by next summer, he should remove more troops than that, remove fewer troops than that, or is that the right amount to remove?" Forty-seven percent said that he should remove "more troops," with an additional 3 percent volunteering the answer that he should "[r]emove all troops now." Only 36 percent said he should "remove fewer troops" or that that was "the right amount to remove." From the poll:
q67 President Bush has proposed reducing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to pre-surge levels by the summer of 2008. Do you think by next summer, he should remove more troops than that, remove fewer troops than that, or is that the right amount to remove?
** TOTAL RESPONDENTS ** ****Party ID**** Total Rep Dem Ind % % % % Remove more troops 47 20 69 45 Remove fewer troops 7 12 3 7 Right amount 29 51 17 26 Depends (Vol.) 5 3 4 8 Remove all now (Vol.) 3 1 2 4 DK/NA 9 13 6 9
Further, as
Talking Points Memo blogger Greg Sargent
noted, the Gallup poll also contained
findings
that do not indicate that "[t]he public has grown more patient on Iraq" since Petraeus' report.
However,
Murray did not report these findings in her article. From Sargent's September 22 post:
As it happens, the very same poll that Murray allows these GOPers to cherry pick from has a bunch of other numbers in it, too. It finds that 59% want a timetable for withdrawal and that barely one-third think the surge is having a positive effect. Indeed, the pollsters themselves conclude that most of the public's opinions on Iraq "run contrary to the message delivered by Petraeus to Congress last week."
The only numbers from this poll that make it into Murray's piece, however, are the ones that GOP Senate staffers circulated.
I'd like to see a poll question that asks people what they believe we are accomplishing in Iraq. The range of answers whould me interesting.
I loved the line "or even too quick".
So the end result of the General's plan, not the president's but the General's plan, is to have as many troops in Iraq almost two years after the "thumping" at the polls when the American people spoke very loudly and said, ENOUGH!!
And now someone is trying to spin these poll results to show that the voters have changed their opinion on the war? What planet is this guy from?
What is this? Goldilocks and the three Bears?
PHee PHi PHoe PHat, I tot I taw a pundit prat!
It’s the wrong question anyway. Too much detail and it only nibbles around the edges of the key issue. Why not get to the heart of the matter?
How about “Do you consider pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq ASAP would likely have (a) a positive effect on our efforts to win the GWOT, or (b) a negative effect?Or C be irrelevant to it. Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner
Yeah, that's a much better question, OLdmarine. Totally loaded and based on an imaginary premise.
You oughta start your own polling company, then you could offer choices like
A. Glorious Victory, or
B. cowardly surrender.
Oh, he's with the camp that would ask: President Bush? a. Great President or b. the greatest President?
How about “Did you consider invading Iraq in 2003, would likely have
(a) a positive effect on our efforts to win the GWOT, or (b) a negative effect?
Since our supposed nemisis in the "Global War on Terror" is sitting in Pakistan dying his beard and thumbing his nose at us, I'll have to vote with Solon.
The Bush apologists have glommed onto this notion that winning some poorly defined symbolic "victory" in Iraq will somehow demoralize the world's terrorists to the point that they'll slink away to their caves and leave us alone. They're still trying to fit Al Qaeda into some bogus WWII template that they've constructed in their minds...as if terrorism is a monolithic entity that can surrender or be vanquished like the nations of Japan and Germany. It's a mix of wishful thinking and self-delusion.
I'm often amused - albeit sometimes bitterly so - at how news reports combine answers in polls to get a desired result.
Murray reported that the poll "showed 54 percent of those surveyed think Petraeus's plan for removing troops is the right pace, or even too quick,"
Couldn't that very same poll have been reported as "75% of Americans want troops out of Iraq at least as fast as General Petraues has proposed?"
That is every bit as accurate, but gives a very different feeling.
It's an old trick. They used it as far back as Clinton's first term. By combining Bush Sr's totals with Perot's, they trumpeted that a majority of the American people had voted against Clinton. It's like Jedi mind tricks...it only works on the weak-minded.
Speaking of WWII, have any of you recorded this and/or watched the first episode on PBS last night? Pretty good so far. If Ken Burnes has done half the job with this that he did with “The Civil War”, it’ll be a good series.
Back to the GWOT. You guys keep saying the same thing over and over again that Iraq is not the central front. If it’s not, why is Iraq where most of the action is why is Al Qaeda working so hard to win there, and why is Ahmajinedad expending so much effort to win there.
Also, you keep saying that the majority of American people want us out of Iraq, want to bring the troops home and all of that. And I keep pointing out that if that were the case, since the Democrat party holds the majority in congress and even some Republicans are more afraid of the New York Times than they are of their own voters and would be ripe for picking off, then the congress would have overridden Bush and started bringing the troops home.
That hasn’t happened and it won’t for one very simple reason: you’re wrong. The American people do not want to lose in Iraq or anywhere else in the GWOT.
"why is Iraq where most of the action is"
Gee, you think maybe it's because that's where we invaded? Is most of the killing in Iraq done by Al Qaeda, or is it Sunni vs. Shia?
"why is Al Qaeda working so hard to win there"
Just how hard are they trying to "win"? Maybe, as some terrorism experts have said, they're using it as a training ground? Maybe they're using our presence there to recruit unemployed Iraqi youths? Where else can they hone their skills against the world's strongest military? Could it be that killing American soldiers is sort of a "status symbol" for these guys? Just some possibilities.
"why is Ahmajinedad expending so much effort to win there"
Again, how much effort? What proof do we have that he's really doing much of anything? Because the Bush administration says so? What was that Bush says..."Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice..."
As for Congress, don't mistake the Republicans ability to jerk the Democrats around as some kind of mandate from the public. After all, the public was against impeaching Clinton...the Republicans don't give a ratsass about what the public wants.
Nerzog,
Exactly. Good for you. That’s why it is the central front. So you DO agree that it’s the central front?
Why is Al Qaeda working so hard to win there?
You’re working too hard to skirt the issue. If they lose there it’s a huge setback for their efforts in the GWOT. They have to win there because it’s the central front. Winning in Egypt, or Malaysia, or anywhere else will have little meaning if they lose in Iraq. Losing in Iraq means that Iraq will have achieved a functioning democratic government that has defeated Al Qaeda and the Shiite militias. That is the worst imaginable outcome to these two factions of militant Islam.
You must not be paying much attention to what we know Iran is doing to generate instability in Iraq. I take it from your reply that you think everyone in the Bush/Patraeus chain of command is lying about Iranian involvement in Iraq. No surprise.
As for your last paragraph, you’ve got to be kidding. You think politicians of either stripe “don’t give a rat’s ass” about what they perceive public opinion to be? Think about it. Did you really mean to say that?
And the Republicans are not the ones jerking the congressional Democrats around. It’s the Democrats themselves who are jerking one another around. They are getting further and further from reality in their speech and they are becoming more disarrayed as a party because of it.HAhahaha hahaha haha, he hehehe Ahem. Me thinks thou doth listen to too much Limbaugh. But that's good for us logical thinkers.
If things keep going the way your party has been taking them, we won't be bothered with Republicans for a long long time. And that's good for everyone!!!
The answer to the first question is so painfully obvious that I will out of a sense of mercy let it pass. In your second weak attempt at a point, it is beyond OBVIOUS that the majority of Americans want the troops to come home and it is YOU that is not only WRONG but delusional. Power dynamics are what they are and just because a majority wants something doesnt mean the party in power will give it to them. For at least a decade every poll ever done shows a large majority of Americans want universal health care yet we dont have it. MONEY, in the form of insurance companies DONT want it powerful interests dont want it and Congresscritters have a tendency to listen to those groups there are other factors in the mix but to say the majority of Americans DONT want us out of Iraq just because Congress hasnt voted to do it is just silly.
"That is the worst imaginable outcome to these two factions of militant Islam."
Really? Says who? Bush? You're essentially parroting Bush's "Glory and victory" rhetoric, which has no basis in reality. It's political rhetoric. Period. Let's say we kill every single "terrorist" in Iraq. Do you think Bin Ladin will be so demoralized that he'll retire from the terrorist business?
"I take it from your reply that you think everyone in the Bush/Patraeus chain of command is lying about Iranian involvement in Iraq."
Not necessarily. Apparently unlike you, however, I do think it's a possibility. They've lied before...repeatedly. Why should we believe them now? Where's their proof?
The Republicans themselves have said that they don't pay attention to polls. Why did they impeach Clinton when 70% of the public opposed it? Principle? You gotta be kidding! The only "public" they pay attention to is their knuckledragging base.
Nerzog,
One of the best tests for an argument is to turn it around and ask the inverse question. Do you think losing in Iraq is NOT the worst imaginable outcome for militant Islam? It not, then what could be a worse outcome in all of their current undertakings throughout the world (Al Qeada and Ahmajinedad, that is)?
Regarding the administration’s claim that Iran is supplying material and training to Shiite militia in Iraq, do you totally disbelieve the claim? If so, where is the lying coming from (where in the chain of command)? If not, what part of it do you believe?
Regarding the congressional Republicans’ impeachment of Clinton, once in a great while, politicians do attempt to do the right thing in spite of media bias. If a few more congressmen had not caved to the propaganda assault by the MSM (which does not have the influence today that it had nine years ago, thank God), the impeachment would have become a conviction."If a few more congressmen had not caved to the propaganda assault by the MSM (which does not have the influence today that it had nine years ago, thank God), the impeachment would have become a conviction."
Wow. You really believe that? You think Clinton's impeachment was anything but a partisan witch hunt? The GOP Congress demonstrated that a devoted, dishonest Congress can cripple a presidency...and that's exactly what they did. Propaganda assault? By whom? Did you sleep through the GOP propaganda assault that led up to his impeachment, and continues today?
As for your inverse question, the worst thing for Bin Ladin's goals would be for moderate Muslims to persuade their brethren to ignore him. People like Bin Ladin thrive on conflict and attention. George Bush has given him both. Do you really think that killing thousands of his followers will bother him in the least? He thinks he's on a mission from GOD. The worst thing for him is to have the other clerics denounce what he's doing and convince people to stop following him. Invading their countries only helps his cause.
I'll keep an open mind on Iran. If they have proof that he's doing what they say, let's see it. Oh, I forgot... it's all classified. How convenient. See, the problem is that the Bush administration has no credibility left. You think the Pentagon wouldn't lie? A majority of our troops still believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, even though Bush himself has admitted the opposite. Who's telling them that? Not the media. Somebody in the chain of command is feeding them lies. You think Bush and Cheney wouldn't lie? Where have you been?
Old Marine, I did watch "The War" last night. I thought it was very well done. The question that comes to my mind is how you can watch that and still think that Bush's "Global War on Terror" is in any way equal to WWII?
You seem to buy into the myth that the Terrorists are some organized, finite entity. As though we can exhaust them and defeat them the way we did Japan and Germany. The analogy just doesn't withstand logical scrutiny. You can't demoralize them, you can't wear them out, and you can't kill them all. The best you can do is use intelligence to prevent attacks, kill or capture them when you can find them, and do whatever possible to prevent situations and conditions that breed terrorism in the first place. Hard? You bet...but it will yield better results than invading third world countries with tanks and planes and troops. Even Petraeus admits that you can't kill your way out of this mess.
Nerzog,
I’ve talked about the similarities before: an ideology (Naziism, Imperialism, Communism, … Religion) as the driving force behind the thrust for world domination. The big difference today is that the followers of the Islamist ideology are currently outgunned by the democratic societies which they seek to dominate. Nonetheless, their attacks are effective in that they terrorize civilians all over the world (thus the name “terrorists”). The other big difference, and by far the most threatening difference, is that the acquisition of nuclear weapons could change that “outgunned” situation very quickly.
It’s you that appear to have bought into a “myth”. If you think the Islamists are not organized, then you’re not paying attention. The organization is, unlike the organization of the Nazis and Japanese in WWII, largely covert: money shuffled from the likes of the Saudis to Al Qaeda and war materiel and training from the Iranians to Hezbollah and their proxies in Iraq.
Of course they can be demoralized! If you think otherwise, then you’ve already given up (if you were ever in the conflict to begin with). Zarqawi even put out a message to his Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq over a year ago (before he was nailed by a 2000 lb bomb) regarding the demoralizing effect of coalition successes against his Al Qeada troops in Iraq.
You are right on in saying that “you can’t kill ‘em all”. That means that the war must be won primarily by winning the hearts and minds of Muslims throughout the world which, in turn, means we have to give strong support to Muslims who are moderate in their view of religious tolerance. (You may recall that I said victory is defined as the condition that little kids are no longer taught to hate infidels).
As for breeding terrorism, it’s the U.S. who is attempting to spread democracy (well, at least that’s the Bush doctrine). It’s the Islamists, the communists, and the various tyrannical governments throughout the world who fear the U.S. and its citizens’ love of liberty.
The other big difference between WWII and the GWOT is that in the former, the country was united in the war effort. In the GWOT, the Democrats and their supporters in the MSM appear to be working to get us defeated - and, obviously, just for political advantage. My sense is that the Democrats realize this isn’t working and are thus in disarray."Democrats and their supporters in the MSM appear to be working to get us defeated"
GMAFB...aren't you the one who complained about not being able to conduct civil discourse, or some such crap? Jesus H. Christ on Rubber Crutches. That's just bullsh*t.
I guess I'm wasting my time arguing with a true believer, but it's so fascinating to find someone who swallows the GOP propaganda at face value. Hell, even I don't buy the Left's propaganda without a grain of salt. You apparently believe every word of George Bush's rhetoric about the "war on terror"...you apparently believe that the Pentagon or the President would never lie to us. You apparently believe that "winning" in Iraq will somehow send all terrorists scurrying into their hidey holes. You apparently believe that the reason Clinton wasn't convicted is because of a concerted "pro Clinton propaganda effort" by the press. Wow. What planet have you spent the last thirty years on? There's nothing I can say that will make a dent. It would be easier to convince a five-year-old that there's no Santa Claus.
"the acquisition of nuclear weapons could change that “outgunned” situation very quickly."
Well, not unless they can build several thousand warheads. Here's one of your inverse questions...how does our staying in Iraq stop them from getting a nuclear bomb?
As for the country not being "organized" as in WWII...who's fault is that? Bush told us to go shopping, and gave billionaires tax cuts, and refuses to institute a draft. We're just following his lead.
I am constantly astonished by the way your delusional fantasies push any facts or reality out of your way. Sure the Islamists are united that is why right now Sunnis are killing Shiites in vast numbers in Iraq. There are tons of differences between this and WW2. Not the least of which is the way the right is consumed by the desire to get as many Americans killed as they possibly can in an unnecessary distraction FROM any ACTUAL war we might have against terrorists. IF there had every been any motivation to fight Extremist Islamic terrorists why in the world wasnt invading the most SECULAR Islamic country in the middle east blatant insanity? The bottom line here is you have ZERO understanding of this issue. In WW2 we knew EXACTLY where and who the enemy were, that made a military solution the only one that made sense. While YOU are fixated on the mistake we made in Iraq terrorists are all over the world most of them having NO emotional investment in Iraq at all. The one thing you got right is the best tactic has to do with winning hearts and minds and imperialist adventures like Iraq are anathema to doing that. Ben Laden TOLD the Islamic world the US would invade and occupy an oil rich country that didnt threaten them. If George Bush had been taking orders directly from Osama, as some sort of Al Queda mole he could not have helped their cause any more and YOU are carrying their water too
Love of liberty! With the world's highest percentage of population in prison, a war crime in progress, backing many the brutal dictator. Oh yeah, we love lie-berty. Just salute that flag, yell Semper Fi, and we can thump on any third-world country that we fancy!
This is the scourge the world calls ULTRA-nationalism.
I'm puzzled. I can't decide what it can be in his makeup that could explain how our venerable veteran has run so far off the rails of rationality. Is it the "Old" part or the "Marine" part?
It's the "let's kill all moslems" part that controls everything.