Have Americans 'gone' Dovish on Iraq?
To hear the liberal media tell it, public support for U.S. military action in Iraq has all but collapsed. As public 'debate' in recent weeks intensified -- debate involving the costs, the benefits, the risks/rewards of ousting Saddam -- Americans are getting a severe case of 'cold feet', says the media.
Anti-war sentiment is on the rise, the peaceniks are on a roll, White House opponents are driving the debate, public resolve is in a free-fall, or so we're told.
"The polls coming out this week show that ... public support [for attacking Iraq] is dwindling", declared former Clinton strategist George Stephanopoulos Sunday on ABCNEWS' This Week, a show he now hosts.
"I think what we're seeing is the public reacting to the debate", said co-host Cokie Roberts, sporting a big smile, as if to say, 'hey, Georgie, we're winning this! The war-hawks are licking the dust! Yippee! Yippee!'.
Democrats, believing the media hype, increasingly parrot the anti-war line, or straddle the fence. "The American people are split right down the middle", Sen. Bill moist-finger-in-the-wind Nelson told CNN's Late Edition yesterday. In town hall meetings he's hosted, the "moms of this country ... want to know why their sons and daughters are going to be sent into battle."
Foreign policy by town hall, eh? This doofus must think Der Shlickmeister's still in the White House.
Even Sen. Joseph Lieberman, supposedly a 'strong' backer of military action, flashed his true colors on Friday, accusing the White House of failing to provide enough public evidence to warrant going to war.
"I think members of Congress are going to come back demanding more information", he told editors at the Journal-Inquirer of Manchester.
Without more "up-to-date evidence" on the status of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction programs, he would not vote in favor of military action, he 'explained'.
Folks, aren't you glad this fickle, waffling, trembling, blow-with-the-wind pathetic political chameleon isn't in charge?
Told that public support for war has plummeted, former U.S. Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger, also on Late Edition, seemed puzzled, given that polls only days ago showed just the opposite, with strong majorities -- 69% or more -- supporting the use of force against Saddam.
Well, it just so happens that Sec. Weinberger is right -- right on the money, in fact.
At Pollingreport.com, under the heading In the News, you'll find an ABC News/Washington Post poll showing 69% in favor of "U.S. forces take[ing] military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power." Only 22% opposed the use of force. The survey, conducted August 7-11, 2002, had a margin of sampling error of +/- 3%.
Scrolling down further, a CBS News poll pegged support for military action at 66%, with only 26% opposed. The survey was conducted August 6-7, 2002, and had a MOE (margin of error) of +/- 3%.
Still further down the page, a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, conducted August 6-7, posted similar results, with 69% in favor of military action, and 22% opposed. The MOE in this survey was also +/- 3%.
Nor have the numbers noticeably changed over the months, either.
An April poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates, conducted for Newsweek, showed 68% supporting military action, 24% opposed.
Back in January, 71% supported the use of force, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll. Twenty-four percent opposed.
Again, not much difference.
So, what's going on here? Where's the much-ballyhooed "drop" in support?
A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll last week sent shock waves across Washington, and sparked a barrage of news reports claiming a sea-change in public attitudes.
"The most recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll", writes David W. Moore of the Gallup News Service, "finds that the public is more conflicted now over" the use of force in Iraq, as compared to immediately after 9/11.
"A bare majority of Americans, 53%, say they would favor sending American ground troops to the Persian Gulf area in an attempt to remove Hussein from power, while 41% say they would oppose such action", he writes.
He adds that "by this past June, support had fallen to the 61% level, and opposition had risen to 31%."
So, support over the summer has dropped from 61% to 53%, right?
Er, not so fast.
From the archives at Pollingreport.com, the June survey results are posted as follows:
Would you favor or oppose sending American troops back to the Persian Gulf in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq?
59% favor, 34% oppose.
This poll was conducted by Gallup June 17-19, 2002, and has a margin of sampling error of +/- 3.
So, rather than "falling" 8 percentage points, from 61% down to 53%, support for sending troops to the Persian Gulf is down only slightly, 6% percentage points over the period, from 59% to 53%, barely outside the survey's margin of error. Hardly what one would call a "sea-change".
But, wait a minute: What about all those other polls showing much higher levels of support for military action -- 69% or higher?
Ah, here we come to the nub of the problem, a difference in semantics, the basis for the glaring discrepancy.
Notice how Gallup -- and Gallup alone -- inserts the word "troops" in their MAIN survey question.
That makes all the difference in the world.
In the aforementioned ABC News/Washington Post poll, the 69% level of support for military action drops a whopping 12% points, to 57%, merely by inserting the word "troops" in the question. The same poll shows 36% would oppose military action.
"Troops" evokes memories of Vietnam, and skews the survey results.
To illustrate, back in March, 67% supported "using military air strikes but no U.S. ground troops" against Iraq, according to Gallup.
But when asked if they favor using "U.S. ground troops to invade Iraq", public support plummets a full 21% percentage points, from 67% to 46%!! The same poll shows a huge 50% would oppose such action.
Again, this survey was taken back in March, when war "fever" was sizzling -- supposedly more "heated" than currently.
So, in the end, all the media brouhaha about plunging support for war on Saddam is based on flawed or fallacious interpretation of polling data -- wishful thinking, not fact.
Incidentally, even last week's much-touted Gallup poll shows a huge media disconnect with the public.
The press pooh-poohs the notion of possible Iraqi involvement in 9/11, yet a majority of the public, 53%, believe Saddam Hussein "was personally involved in the September 11th terrorist attacks". Only 34% think Saddam had no role in 9/11.
The media scoffs at evidence of possible Iraqi support for terrorist groups plotting attacks on the United States, yet no less than 86% believe "Saddam Hussein is involved" in such activities. Only 8% agree with the media.
Moreover, while "experts" debate whether Iraq currently has, or seeks to obtain, Weapons of Mass Destruction or not, a mindboggling 94% think Saddam either has, or is on his way to developing, such weapons of doom. Only 1% say Saddam is "not trying to develop" WMDs.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
