April 11, 2007
Latest LA Times/Bloomberg Poll
The latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll on the Iraq War contains a real surprise, which might explain why nobody is reporting it. The poll is dated April 5th through April 9th. The key question is this:
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Generally speaking, do you think setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq hurts or helps U.S. troops serving in Iraq right now, or doesn't it affect the troops one way or the other?And the responses, no doubt highly disappointing to the LA Times and other anti-American news organizations, were as follows (emphasis mine):
Hurts: 50%The really crazy thing about the poll is that the next question asks whether the President should sign a funding authorization that includes a timetable for withdrawal, or veto it. The poll found 48% of respondents favoring such a timetable! Even though 50% believe it would harm the troops! Not only that, 45% believe Congress should "refuse to pass any funding bill until Bush agrees to accept conditions for withdrawal." Again, even though it harms the troops.
Helps: 27%
No Effect: 15%
Unsure: 8%
So much for Americans supporting the troops, if you believe the poll.
Predictably, the only news story I found on Google that even mentions the poll is selective in its coverage — i.e. they're incredibly biased. Here's the link. As of this writing, E&P completely failed to mention the first question I highlighted above, instead focusing on the second question. That's not just biased reporting, it's fucking propaganda.
Posted by: annika at
12:00 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.
1
If the link includes propaganda about sexual intercourse, then I can't read it from work. (Or maybe propaganda is OK, just the facts can't be read?)
I don't think the proper question is whether or not something helps the troops - one can easily argue that the best way to "help" the troops is to deploy them in Iowa where people won't shoot at them (I don't think). The proper question is what action will help the Iraqis. But, since Americans are often inwardly-focused, this question is of little consequence to most people. (Liberal Democrats as the new isolationists?)
The interesting part of the poll question is the 27% who believed that a timetable would help the troops. Did the respondents believe that the timetable would help the troops in the long-term only, or did they also see some short-term benefit? (If so, I can't imagine what it would be.)
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 11, 2007 01:03 PM (B0VZe)
2
Annika,
Another deeply flawed set of question given to the deeply flawed American voter whose intelligence is only somewhat more compromised than their morals or ability to think logically.
Of course, "What's good for the troops" is a crap phrase, completely ambiguous. You think keeping their morale high, belief in the mission intact and their kit well equiped is what they need and I think sleeping at home with their wife and taking care of their kids is what they need.
Posted by: Strawman at April 11, 2007 01:25 PM (9ySL4)
3
"The proper question is what action will help the Iraqis. But, since Americans are often inwardly-focused, this question is of little consequence to most people."
Ah, the Emperor just reminded me of something. Right Wing Donn posted my favorite comment of the week:
[An even MORE interesting essay would be:
“How the Iraqis Lost Iraq.”
And, might I add, the Iraqis can singularly give themselves credit for turning the Post 9/11 generations in America into people who certainly believe or feel or both that it is better to have a brutal dictator in power, with rape rooms, mass beatings and mass murder--as long as he keeps the peace and keeps the population from doing to each other what the Iraqis are determined to do.
Muqtada al Sadr--THIS is YOUR legacy.
I donÂ’t think anyone in America needs worry that the U.S. will do anything like this any time soon. Which means that the Brits and French had better learn to stand on their own. Because I think we will soon hear:
NO AMERICAN BLOOD FOR EUROFREEDOM!!!!]
...................................................
"(Liberal Democrats as the new isolationists?)"
Not quite.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 11, 2007 06:24 PM (fO04l)
4
...whose intelligence is only somewhat more compromised than their morals or ability to think logically.
Except for you, right?
Posted by: eh at April 11, 2007 09:28 PM (M2Hj1)
Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 12, 2007 04:17 AM (quenf)
6
Hey Red,
Have you checked the label on your terry cloth upholstered barcolounger? I'll bet it says "schmuck sienna".
Posted by: Strawman at April 12, 2007 07:32 AM (9ySL4)
7
That's wild. At first I thought it must be an antique piece of furniture. But its apparently something new. I knew Canadians were odd, but racist too?
Posted by: annika at April 12, 2007 07:53 AM (WfR6S)
8
Annika,
My guess is that it is a misspelling of "Niger Brown"
Posted by: Strawman at April 12, 2007 08:26 AM (9ySL4)
9
in that case, Straw, shouln't it be the color of "yellow" cake?
; )
Posted by: annika at April 12, 2007 08:31 AM (gPH4l)
10
It was assembled in China. I'll bet the overseer had the label-making Chinaman blindfolded with dental floss thus creating the error.
Of course the stoopid™ only multiplies: the dumb-assed bitch is bringing the 1 square inch tag to some PC Humanoid Rights Commission. :rollseyes:
Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 12, 2007 09:27 PM (QizG9)
11
Annika,
Right you are. Yellow cake with Niger Brown chocolate icing.
Posted by: Strawman at April 13, 2007 01:03 PM (9ySL4)
20kb generated in CPU 0.0115, elapsed 0.0645 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.0563 seconds, 172 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
62 queries taking 0.0563 seconds, 172 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
