Given the steady drumbeat of defeatism that has defined the Iraq narrative over the past several years, this is, as Jules Crittenden argues, nothing short of miraculous.
Of course, CNN is not so much interested in what Americans believe about the kind of progress being made in Iraq as it is with gauging just how effective the anti-war media campaign has been at poisoning the epistemic well in advance of the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus:
WASHINGTON (CNN)  A majority of Americans don’t trust the upcoming report by the Army’s top commander in Iraq on the progress of the war and even if they did, it wouldn’t change their mind, according to a new poll.
President Bush frequently has asked Congress  and the American people  to withhold judgment on his so-called troop surge in Iraq until Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, issue their progress report in September.
But according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Thursday, 53 percent of people polled said they suspect that the military assessment of the situation will try to make it sound better than it actually is. Forty-three percent said they do trust the report.
[…]
Of those opposed to the war, 47 percent said Petreaus’ report could not change their mind while 17 percent said it could.
So roughly half of the 49% who oppose the war have taken the Harry Reid route, and have concluded in advance that nothing offered by the report can change their mind — though you can bet your dubious Nevada real estate deals that these same folks will be the ones loudly trumpeting whatever bad news is contained in the report.
A report that they have admitted cannot sway they — and so one that is, of necessity, invalid.
Happily for them, this faction of the anti-war camp is not constrained by intellectual honesty or rigor; instead, they answer only to rhetoric, and will therefore use any means at their disposal to advance their ideological position, without worry that they may be running afoul of facts, which are only useful, rhetorically, when they support an ideologically preconceived end.
Nice work if you can get it.
****
More here.
teh betrayus report? ohnoes
Reality based!
Why, pray tell, does such a poll matter? Isn’t this phenomena just a stone’s throw from reading tea leaves from the Arab Street, notwithstanding people on the Arab Street are generally undereducated nincompoops, without personal knowledge concerning the issues being discussed? The only distinction, as far as I can tell, is that the American Street just a few less Rage Boys.
So is there any chance that the the left (voters and media) will actually take a sober, analytical view of Gen. Petraeus’ report and, applying in depth reasoning skills and balancing the conclusions against the national interest, reach a well considered policy position devoid of partison coloring?
Sadly, no!
BECAUSE OF THE QUAGMIRE!
BTW: Jeff, guess who raised his head again at the pub?
What we have here is failure to
communicatecomprehend.The actual question:
I don’t see how there was any need to include “President” and “Congress” in the predicate of this question. And I’ve really no idea what Keating is trying to say, other than that CNN will be trying to associate Petraeus as closely as possible with Bush.
Will you foolishly believe in the validatity of the “report” that the so-called president has requested of his crony, the so-called general in charge of the mess in Iraq, the latest fiasco, a so-called “surge”, when the report lands like a wet newspaper in September?
Karl –
Do some research and determine where your family came from prior to the United States. Then go there.
Hans
I think Hans’s remark is not directed so much at Karl as much as it is what he represents.
Hans, I believe Karl was parodying the CNN poll question.
This is good:
his so-called troop surge in Iraq
A large quantity of soldiers were sent in a relatively short time as a force-multiplier. Which definition of “surge” does that not satisfy?
Some of you need to service your sarcasm detectors.
I think they’re broken.
Yikes, when we can’t distinguish when someone’s either being serious or when someone’s dropping a leftist parody, one can perhaps deduce that when lefties are being serious, they have become (or have always been) a parody of themselves.
Parody or real, it’s still rather silly.
In the absence of a high quality troll, I think it’s worth practicing whenever an oppurtunity presents itself.
happyfeet: If that is the actual question, then the polling director should be fired (unless it is his job to get the answers that his boss wants). Aside from being of poor English construction, the question is clearly designed to bias responses towards a negative view of the Petraeus report. Phrases such as “what’s really going on” and “without making thesityuation sound better” are clear negatives w.r.t. the pending report. The tagline question “or don’t you feel that way” requires the respondent to contradict the questioner in order to respond favorably to the Petraeus report, and pollsters know that people tend not to do that. Let’s try this as a poll question ‘Do you think that Harry Reid’s proposal for surrender to terrorists both puts our troops in danger and will likely lead to a massacre of innocent civilians in Iraq, or don’t you feel that way.’ Think that wording would be acceptable to CNN??
That’s the exact question, I had gotten it from a pdf at the cnn site. The link is gone now, but I did c and v that question straight out of there.
happyfeet:
c and v?????????
Cut and Vomit? :-)
I truly believe that we are now reaping some of what President Bush has sown by not adequately defending himself and this war over the past few years. He was warned by many that he was allowing public opinion to be swayed by the left-media, but he just shrugged and sauntered off. There were many times when the only defense he was getting was from talk radio and conservative blogs.
It is, I think, human to feel that you don’t need to defend yourself over every little thing, particularly when you are defending against the same redundant barbs week after week and month after month. And, while to some degree it is true that by arguing you are “dignifying the remarks” of others, I think it was a huge mistake to not come back with fists flying.
This is the aftermath.
it’s a neologism, I’m almost sure
ouch- I was being sarcastic. I felt the use of the words “so called surge” in the original question, as well as the tone all led the poll to where CNN wanted it- bashing the administration, and all efforts towards any success.
sorry for the poor humor
wet newspaper was my second choice….guess it was best I edited
Karl
that last was at #16, at #17 I’d say, um, you are dour. Dour, I say. Why do I say that? Cause, Kirk, the only way to countermand the left-media is to speak, unfiltered, to the audience that the left-media commands, and they don’t play that game no mores.
For example. Scott McClellan used to be a mainstay on NPR – they played (edited) clips of him all the time. This is because he sucked. When Tony Snow got the job, they decided they never really needed to play clips of him and mostly just let the reporter people cite him as a source as they saw fit. This is because Tony Snow is compelling.
Outside of buying airtime, there’s very little Bush can do to “push back” against a hostile and liberal media. He can speak to all the friendly audiences he wants, but the media is still going to filter it as they deem appropriate. It’s a free speech thing.
If you mean Bush should directly confront a hostile media with their biasedness, well, whatever good may come of that is probably only incrementally better than having the media so freely displaying their bias… I think a backlash is more likely, but also, I, for one, take those polls with respect to how people feel about the media fairly seriously, and I think the media can be shown to have hurt themselves with this little bender they’ve been on.
Agreed, happyfeet. President Bush has made speech after speech of Iraq’s rationale, goals, and strategies both before and now during the conflict. The entire texts of these speeches are always readily available. Yet the news media by and large either ignore the key contents, or they latch on to two sentences that mention Scooter Libby and slap that across the headlines. In the meantime, Democratic opposition and Bush naysayers continue to squawk “we went to war without a plan” or “nobody has defined ‘victory'”. Hogwash.
Karl, you should have said “so-called ‘Iraq'”. When you do an over the top parody, you have to go over the so-called “top”.
witheld would never go over the so-called “top”
Happyfeet, I think also most people have already made up their minds one way or the other and just tune out most news that mentions Iraq. In fact 33% of poll respondents stopped listening to that question before the pollster reached the end of it. Half of those (roughly 75%) answered with “whatever” which in standard polling translates to “Sir, yes Sir! May I have another, Sir?”
will therefore use any means at their disposal
That’s what I’ve been trying to TELL you.
“…and even if they did, it wouldn’t change their mind, according to a new poll.”
– Ah , the ever present bench warmer expediant for cleaning up any discordent “lint” that weakens the intentioned “narrative”.
– No need for opening arguments, evidence, or testimony…..the Queen has determined the plaintiffs guilty, even before the trial has begun, such is the omnipotence of her excellency’s vision, so off with their heads!….if they protest, give them another….
klrfz1 – I agree with that, and the questions are usually far far more informative than the poll results – Here’s one you won’t hear: Have the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan prompted you to make any changes in your lifestyle or consumption habits?
For the record, “Karl” above was not me.