home

AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in Iraq Speech

By TChris, Section Media
Posted on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 03:29:38 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

It's good to see the AP calling out the president when he fails to tell the country the rest of the story.

President Bush is making selective use of an opinion poll when he tells people that Iraqis are increasingly upbeat.

The same poll that indicated a majority of Iraqis believe their lives are going well also found a majority expressing opposition to the presence of U.S. forces, and less than half saying Iraq is better off now than before the war.

The AP also notes the president's dismissive attitude toward polls that tell him things he doesn't want to hear (like the percentage of Americans who think he's doing a lousy job) -- an attitude that makes it odd for him to embrace (albeit selectively) a poll of Iraqis.

< Hearings Requested Into Bush's Warrantless Surveillance | Rockefeller Wary in 2003 About Secret Spying >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in Iraq Speech | 27 comments (27 topical)
    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 03:46:32 PM EST
    There once was a man named Bush Who yap-yap'd out of his tush He said "Go make war!" Without knowing what for And the bodies get piled and pushed.

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#2)
    by roy on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 03:50:16 PM EST
    A majority said they, individually, are better off than before the war. And a majority said that Iraq is not. So Iraqis are better off, but Iraq isn't? That doesn't mesh. One group or the other is mistaken. Since it's easier to judge one's own condition than to judge a whole country's, I'd guess that the second group is mistaken.
    The AP also notes the president's dismissive attitude toward polls that tell him things he doesn't want to hear
    OK, yeah, that's a cheap political trick. And unremarkable. Find me a politician or pundit who calls public attention to polls whose results he doesn't like.

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 04:09:48 PM EST
    Since it's easier to judge one's own condition than to judge a whole country's, I'd guess that the second group is mistaken.
    not really roy. if you're no longer being tortured, you, as an individual, are better off. if, at the same time, the country is destroyed, the entire country is not, and both of your perceptions are valid.
    an attitude that makes it odd for him to embrace (albeit selectively) a poll of Iraqis.
    again, not really. in fact, you contradict yourself in the same sentence. the key is "selectively". he selects those polls, and parts of polls, that he wishes to use. nothing odd about that at all.

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 04:38:18 PM EST
    et al - I would guess that all Iraqis want the US to leave Iraq. The question should have been. Do you believe that the US should leave now, or b), when your government thinks it is ready and able to provide security. And the AP reporter/reporters/editors know this, so you can just chalk up their complaint as just another example of media bias.

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#5)
    by ras on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 06:13:50 PM EST
    Polls that ask people for their personal view, aot their view of their country at large, have been showing similar discrepancies for as long as I can remember, and across many countries. Offhand, I can think of no exceptions: i.e. no countries where people generally view their country's future more optimistically than they view their own. They know their own lives well and can be accurate. Their view of the rest of their country usually comes from the media where, if it bleeds, it leads. I would be more inclined to trust a judgement based on a summation of firsthand views, than a summation based on hearsay. All in favor of hearsay, raise your hands! BTW, PPJ, The details on the "US should leave Iraq" are always the same: Iraqis want the US to leave after the security situation has stabilised, but not before, much in line w/Bush's plans in that regard. I bet you already knew that, but I thought it worth mentioning anyway.

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#6)
    by ras on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 06:20:33 PM EST
    Oh, and perhaps Bush is on to something. I note that he has jumped up 10 pts in his approval rating re Iraq (and even more than that overall) on the basis of just 2, count 'em, 2 speeches. Man, that's gotta be frustrating for his opponents, to know that all he has to do is talk for a few minutes to *completely* undo months of opposition. But ideas matter. In between elections, the Mediacrats make noise and people shrug and say, "I guess," the polls shift, and the Dems think they're on to something. Then elections come, people pay attention again (as they did, just a bit, for that pair of quickie speeches) and ... well, you know the rest. I wonder how long till Dems figure it out & chg tactics? Any guesses? Cuz the pattern, now so very well estabished, shows just how unreliable polls can be unless they concentrate on areas, such as their own lives, with which the respondents are wholly familiar.

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#7)
    by Sailor on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 06:32:03 PM EST
    Don't like the answers? Cry media bias, media bias ... look 9/11!!! Or make up stories about what the iraqis would answer if only they'd been asked the 'right' question. bush, the same way he did in presenting the war, cherry picked the small glimmer of good news out of a negative report. He lied by omission.

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#8)
    by roy on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 06:44:22 PM EST
    I think this is the ABC writeup for the poll in question. Includes all the questions and results (PDF). Highlights: Q8 suggests that a U.S. withdrawl is less important than "security", "peace and stability", or "a better life". Other questions reinforce this prioritization, but to me this seems like a fishy way to evaluate priorities. Q33 addresses when, not just if the U.S. should withdraw. The top 2 answers were "Remain until security is restored" (31%) and "Leave now" (26%). So, two points to Jim for digging on the AP. Why'd they publicize the #2 answer? Because they're biased. Why'd they do it in an article complaining about skewed poll publicity? Because they're blatantly biased. And, I was full of carp regarding the conflicting majority opinions above. I don't know where I thought I saw those results, but it wasn't this poll. 51% say things are better at an individual level (Q2), 44% at a country level (Q5). Close enough. (I've hit my limit for the day, please don't read anything into my insuing silence)

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 10:40:23 PM EST
    ras and PPJ...so it appears you two would approve of there being a national referendum so the people of Iraq could vote on whether they want foreign troops out of their country right now? Right? Right?

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#10)
    by ras on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:01:27 AM EST
    Ernesto, I would completely support a referendum, exactly as you described. To the people of Iraq: do you want the US troops to leave your country right now? I'd abide by the results, too; would you? [Given that their elected reps have already answered that selfsame q in no uncertain terms, think before you answer, Ernesto!]

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:12:49 AM EST
    Good, glad you're on board ras. Now tell me why it hasn't happened yet?

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:15:42 AM EST
    Oh and one more thing...do you think the U.S. would actually abide by the outcome if they were told to leave?

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#13)
    by soccerdad on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 07:02:10 AM EST
    The middle school bully is in fine form today spouting his normal pile of pig manure.

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 07:22:56 AM EST
    Soccerdad, It must really be tough for him when no one will talk to him unless he insults or baits them. Neurotic insecurity is an awful thing to live with... ----- Watch out for the ceiling beams today, whizzy.

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#15)
    by soccerdad on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 09:00:12 AM EST
    edger excellent point

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 09:19:32 AM EST
    edgey - Is that why you tell people to shoot themselves? SaDly - Two links to two reputable main stream sites and you deny? And you speak of insults? SD, you are the king of insults. KAC, SD. You are funny. Now, either one of you two master bloggers care to refute the UCLA study and the Washington Post poll? No? Didn't think so. Wait, let ne ve exact. You can't.

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 09:20:42 AM EST
    SD - Just so you don't misunderstand, that is "Let me be exact."

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 09:26:44 AM EST
    "Let me be exact." We must have "mis-underestimated" you...

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#19)
    by soccerdad on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 09:36:30 AM EST
    PPJ ROTFLMAO I am but rookie when it comes to insults, mine are obvious you try to hide behind many more words and then deny their meaning. I bow down before the sultan of snark, the Iman of insult, the ruler of unreality, the maven of marlarky, the dean of delusions. You are very good at what you do. Unfortunetly its about as useful as a pimple on my butt. Maybe someday you will obtain some self respect and stop making a fool of yourself, but I doubt it. The one useful thing you accomplish is to keep remining us of the true character of Bush's followers and the level of dishonesty that must be overcome.

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 09:56:25 AM EST
    Soccerdad: keep remining us of the true character of Bush's followers and the level of dishonesty that must be overcome. Reminds of the term "useful idiot", doesn't he?

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 11:37:07 AM EST
    Posted by JimakaPPJ December 20, 2005 10:19 AM edgey - Is that why you tell people to shoot themselves Yeah, when you make a funny involving firearms and people, put a smiley on the end of your sentence like PPJ did the time he talked about making an exception to his rule about not shooting hippies. If you're replying to someone's attempt at humor(which you do whenever you reply to PPJ aka dim), it's makes it easier to tell someone with all the emotional stability of a 7-year old boy what they should do to improve themselves and the planet. ;) Now, either one of you two master bloggers care to refute the UCLA study and the Washington Post poll? No? Didn't think so. Wait, let ne ve exact. You can't. PPJ, the upgrade included the "Preview" button, not that it will fix your neurosis about getting cooties from it if you start using it...... et al, BTW I ran the info from the two 'mainstream' links through the Avengalizer, and it turns out they're both from the 85% portion of the mainstream media that PPJ told us was unreliable. So sad! Fiddle-dee-dee, Melanie!

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 08:23:04 PM EST
    Darkly - So, you can't refute them. And no, edgey wasn't kidding. And yes, I was as I have shown time again. Evidently your memory is rather short. Really, can you do no better? SD - Civil debate normally assumes the civilized use of words that point the problems with the other side. Since you claim to be incapable, perhaps I should cut you some slack... No. Would be prudent. As with Darkly and edgey, all you have done is make personal comments with no rebuttal of the information provided by UCLA and the Washington Post. Facts, guys. Facts. Try'em if you dare.

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 10:44:25 PM EST
    Darkly - So, you can't refute them. No, the Avengerlizer did it for me. It also told shown that anytime you quote from 'so-called MSM', you quote from the 85% that is biased and untrustworthy. I'd explain the science behind it to you, but as you're uneducated when it comes to computers and science, I'll have to wait for the next open thread to do so in words of two syllables or less. And no, edgey wasn't kidding Because he didn't put a smiley at the end of his sentence like you did. We know, we know. And yes, I was as I have shown time again. Evidently your memory is rather short. I mentioned the smiley, so my memory is good. Too bad you can't show the same kind of memory about the stupidities that you've perpetrated here, oh, well. Really, can you do no better? I have to work the material I have, even if it's as unpromising as your paranoic delusions about the Left that you share with us here sometimes. Civil debate normally assumes the civilized use of words that point the problems with the other side and you engage in civilized debate here by telling folks what they 'know' and don't know, which is fine if you were a telepath, but you're not.
    all you have done is make personal comments with no rebuttal of the information provided by UCLA
    Try this on for size: Link Money quotes:
    So yeah, the media is liberally biased because politically they are somewhere between Joe Lieberman and John Breaux. I wish I could do something other than speechlessly scratch my head at this point. Wait, looking at the methodology again, it's not even that they're politicically between Breaux and Lieberman, but rhetorically.
    Step 1: Start with a right-wing talking point, "The media is liberal because they identify the Heritage Foundation as conservative, but don't identify Think Tank X as liberal. Ignore the fact that the Heritage Foundation itself " says its mission is "to formulate and promote conservative public policies" and Think Tank X identifies itself as nonpartisan, and has both liberals and conservatives on its board. Instead assume the talking point is completely sincere. I was going to identify steps 2 and 3, but step 1 pretty much says it all about how dishonest this is. As research, it's right up there with Ken Tomlinson's PBS "research" that identified anyone who criticized Bush as "liberal," but called Henry Rollins "conservative" because he talked on-air about a USO tour.
    Foiddle-dee-dee, Melanie!

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 07:00:36 AM EST
    Darkly writes:
    No, the Avengerlizer did it for me. It also told shown that anytime you quote from 'so-called MSM', you quote from the 85% that is biased and untrustworthy.
    So, what's the point you are making? Still trying to set up a strawman to hide the UCLA and WaPost links? I mean like your link is "unbiased." And no comment on the WaPost/ABC poll? BTW - Avengerlizer??? Should that be spelled Avenger liz er? And shouldn't that be 82.8756543%? Ta Ta

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 07:21:41 AM EST
    Show me some explicit examples about Bush’s fibs.
    New York Times columnist David Brooks revealed that he has learned from private conversations with Bush officials who "represent" what "Bush believes" that from its earliest days, the Bush administration adopted a policy of shielding itself from political damage by never publicly admitting any mistake -- even if it meant lying to the media and the American public. --MORE... TTFN, whizzy...

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 09:30:37 AM EST
    So, what's the point you are making? Still trying to set up a strawman to hide the UCLA and WaPost links? I mean like your link is "unbiased." Sorry, PPJ, but the Avengalizer is a state-of-the-art BS detector, and it has shown that your links are BS. You can let your inner child(I meant bully) cry about it, but the links come from the 85% of the media that distorts the news, and unlike you, it has an Infallibility circuit that would make Bennie the Rat(aka Mr. "Pope") green with envy. And if you think somehow I've 'hidden the links',(which are still visible on my Mozilla Foxfire browser version of this page) then you need some shrink time with your VA psychiatrist, ASAP. Bush's Top 40 Lies about War and Terrorism Fiddle-dee-dee, Melanie!

    Re: AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in (none / 0) (#27)
    by Slado on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 02:41:49 PM EST
    I'm waiting for the AP poll that asks americans this question: "Do you support the presidents use of wiretaps to monitor possible terrorist calls, even though the receiving or placing caller might be in america?" We all know how those numbers will look. That's why there won't be such a poll taken.

    AP Calls Attention to President's Omissions in Iraq Speech | 27 comments (27 topical)