« Watching Television | Main | Bonfire of the Vanities - Week 111 »

The Latest Misleading Poll From The Media

New poll reflects growing U.S. worry over Iraq

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new survey shows the U.S. public is unhappy with U.S. handling of Iraq and with how the Bush administration deals with the Muslim world in general.

The latest poll reflects a growing disquiet seen in other recent surveys over U.S. involvement in Iraq and a dip in President George W. Bush's overall job approval rating.

The poll, to be published in next month's edition of Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, found nearly six in 10 Americans were worried about the outcome of the war in Iraq.

Nearly 60% of Americans are worried about Iraq. Why is that news? Talk about a useless poll result...

What does it really tell us? I have, since the beginning, been four-square in favor of the war in Iraq...but I'd probably fall into the 60% of people who are worried about the outcome, because I am worried about it. I worry about the terrorist attacks over there. I worry about our soldiers getting killed by IED's. I worry about the success of the new Iraqi government. I worry about the Iraqi security forces. None of this means that I think we're doing a poor job over there, I just worry about it. The only thing that surprises me about this 60% figure is that its not 100%. How can you be an American right now and not be worried about our troops in the middle east?

And, given this below, where does Reuters get off saying that this poll reflects "growing" worry over Iraq?

"Soon the grumbling may become too loud for the Bush administration to ignore," wrote Daniel Yankelovich, who heads Public Agenda, a nonprofit research group that did the poll for the council. It is the first in a new "foreign policy index" to be conducted every six months.

This is the first in a series of polls. It can't, by definition, show a trend. For all we know this poll would have shown that 60% of Americans were worried about Iraq the day after we invaded. There are no previous polls in this series to base a trend on, thus saying there is "growing" worry about Iraq and using this poll to back that claim up is beyond misleading to the point of being a flat-out lie.

And the confusing nature of this poll doesn't stop there.

Asked whether the United States was meeting its objectives in Iraq, 56 percent in the poll said the United States was not while 39 percent said it was.

If you're asked this question: "Is the United States meeting its objectives in Iraq?"

How do you answer with a yes or a no? Its a complicated question. We haven't met all of the objectives in Iraq yet because the mission isn't complete. There are still things to be done. Security forces to train. Government administration to set up. If you answer yes to the question you make it sound as though the mission is over, which it isn't, and we can go home. If you answer no you make it shoud as though America is doing a bad job.

Put mildly, its a stupid poll question and the answers to it by the poll respondents tells us nothing.

This from the article made me sick to my stomach:

A USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll last month found a majority of the U.S. public doubted the United States would win the war in Iraq and believed the Bush administration deliberately misled Americans over Iraq's weapons capabilities when it went to war in 2003.

Well of course the majority of Americans think we're going to lose. All they ever see in the news are the stories about death and destruction. And when they're not reading about death and destruction they're reading about stupid polls, misleading polls like the one described above.

By Rob Port of Say Anything.

Comments (14)

Well noted, Rob. All of the... (Below threshold)

Well noted, Rob. All of these relevations turn out to be worth less than the yellow journalism and pink ink of their parchment. Discredited before it hits the stands.

Ahh, the power of blogs.

The blogosphere is somewhat... (Below threshold)

The blogosphere is somewhat smaller than the MSM.

I heard on the radio earlie... (Below threshold)

I heard on the radio earlier that the people conducting the poll were no less than the council on foreign relations. The question may as well have been: How often do you think Bush feeds on live children?

a single poll is less than worthless.

Changing the subject, I won... (Below threshold)

Changing the subject, I wonder how many of the fruitcakes who frequent this website remember Jean Charles de Menezes - the Brazilian who was shot dead by the police in London last month. Do you remember what you all said about it back then?

Here's part of Jay Tea's post:

1) It was the day after the second bombing.

2) The man was wearing a heavy jacket on a hot summer day.

3) The man jumped the turnstiles, violating the law.

4) The man ran from police.

5) The man ran towards a crowded subway car.

Like the police who killed de Menezes, Jay Tea shoots first and asks questions later. Here are the real facts:

1) CCTV footage and a photograph of De Menezes lying dead on the train show that he was wearing a thin denim jacket - NOT a thick coat - and it could not possibly have concealed a bomb. (The link for the photograph is at the bottom of this)

2) CCTV footage shows that he did NOT jump the turnstiles - he purchased a ticket, picked up a free newspaper and walked calmly through the turnstile in the same way as everyone else.

3) He did NOT run from the police - the only point he ran was on the platform when the train was about to leave. Is there any passenger alive who has not done this frequently?

4)De Menezes was sitting down on the train - not chased into it.

5) He had already been restrained when one of the armed officers shot him.

The story and photograph of de Menezes on the train are here: http://www.itn.co.uk/news/1677571.html

The inquiry is not complete yet and we will have to wait for its results before we make final judgements. But of course the all-knowing, all-wise ones here don't need to wait - you all knew the facts on the very first day. You always do.

Did anyone know that Bill M... (Below threshold)

Did anyone know that Bill Moyers' wife is on the board of Public Agenda?

Amazing. The whole board looks like a who's-who of has-beens.

Looking over the members and their bios, I would have to say that their only members with any millitary or foregn policy ecperience are of the stand pat, put your finger to your lips, and go wubba-wubba-wubba school. All those who show a political bent at all are all left-leaning.

Really non-partisain.....NOT.

Hold on a minute Rob. On o... (Below threshold)

Hold on a minute Rob. On one hand, it's the media's fault that Americans are so negative about Iraq, because all the stories in the news are "about death and destruction"? And yet a whopping 40% of Americans are not worried about the outcome in Iraq? Sorry, but if the media were truly brainwashing Americans into thinking only negative things about Iraq, a heck of a lot more than 60% of the public would be worried.

Sorry, but if 40% of the American public is not worried about a war we're currently fighting, the problem is not that the media too negative. In fact, it could be argued that whoever those 40% are listening to are being way too positive. There's no excuse for "not worrying" about the outcome of a war.

I'm worried about Iraq too,... (Below threshold)
Lew Clark:

I'm worried about Iraq too, so count me in the 60%. I'm worried that the enemies from within will celebrate another Vietnam, which was lost to the leftest propagantists here, not on the battlefields in Southeast Asia. I'm worried I'll see the Jane Fonda's of today embracing Islamic Terrorists and toasting their mutual victory.

RE: cat's diversion (August... (Below threshold)

RE: cat's diversion (August 16, 2005 11:57 PM)

I saw the ITV report that you summarize. Needless to say, the story has become fluid and opinions on this particular incident will change. However, the opinions and interpretations expressed here and elsewhere were based on the facts as reported at the time. No one here made up any parts of the story - they (and I) commented on the data that was presented and described what they (or I) felt was the proper response given the described scenario. Surely those opinions will be modified as the new information is disclosed. I'm afraid you haven't really "gotten" anyone for anything.

Anyway, what's your opinion on the misleading polling post?

I wonder how many of the fr... (Below threshold)
Mark Flacy:

I wonder how many of the fruitcakes who frequent this website

Well, you're here so I guess that's at least one.

AnonymousDrivel - I don't r... (Below threshold)

AnonymousDrivel - I don't really give a damn about the poll, or the smug comments about it. I'm more interested in the slaughter that is taking place in Iraq than in the increasingly delusional comments of the war-supporters. 1,100 Iraqis were killed in Baghdad alone last month. So whether or not Americans are worried is the last thing that concerns me. If there was a poll that showed Americans were ashamed for the disaster they've caused, that might interest me.

cat,I'm interested... (Below threshold)


I'm interested in the slaughter of innocent Iraqis as well. I'm particuarly interested in the fact that they are being slaughtered by other muslims -- the fanatic animals that we mistakenly call insurgents and the FRE that support them. I was there, I saw it in person.

You don't seem to have a firm grasp on what is real, so i will leave it at that. Your echo chamber is calling....

RE: cat's post (August 17, ... (Below threshold)

RE: cat's post (August 17, 2005 01:03 AM)

I don't really give a damn about the poll...

Well that's good to hear and it makes at least two of us.

I'm more interested in the slaughter that is taking place in Iraq than in the increasingly delusional comments of the war-supporters...

Did you really read that article? I don't think it supports the argument that you think it does. Some excerpts via your link:

"July was the bloodiest month in Baghdad's modern history - in all, 1,100 bodies were brought to the city's mortuary; executed for the most part, eviscerated, stabbed, bludgeoned, tortured to death."

"Of the dead, 963 were men - many with their hands bound, their eyes taped and bullets in their heads - and 137 women."

"Between 10 and 20 per cent of all bodies are never identified - the medical authorities have had to bury 500 of them since January of this year, unidentified and unclaimed. In many cases, the remains have been shattered by explosions - possibly by suicide bombers - or by deliberate disfigurement by their killers."

"Mortuary officials have been appalled at the sadism visited on the victims. "We have many who have obviously been tortured - mostly men," one said. "They have terrible burn marks on hands and feet and other parts of their bodies. Many have their hands fastened behind their backs with handcuffs and their eyes have been bound with Sellotape. Then they have been shot in the head - in the back of the head, the face, the eyes. These are executions."

I'll stop there because I think you can get the gist. These are the actions of the "Minutemen", a term so damnably misused by some to describe such vermin. Unless, of course, you are insinuating that American soldiers are performing these acts, in which case you might want to give the New York Times a buzz. They'd appreciate the scoop. Like mesablue said, I think we are all interested in the slaughter of Muslims by Muslims and the passionate attempts made by the coalition and American soldiers to terminate that inhumanity. Or are you opining the return of Saddam and a return to more peaceful times with kite-flying interrupting the less pleasant corpse-chipping?

If there was a poll that showed Americans were ashamed for the disaster they've caused, that might interest me.

Yes, polls based on a preconceived conclusion are always enlightening. They just scream validity. Nevertheless, the "disaster" is a slight improvement over Saddam's killing fields, wouldn't you say?

AnonymousDrivel well said. ... (Below threshold)

AnonymousDrivel well said. Now I don't have to post a 2+ page reality check. Much appreciated.

RE: Darby's post (August 17... (Below threshold)

RE: Darby's post (August 17, 2005 03:38 AM)

Now I don't have to post a 2+ page reality check.

Those do get tiring, don't they? You'd think at some point they'd no longer be necessary. Glad to be of service.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy