So Called Liberal Media

May 14, 2004 6:33 PM

A choice quote, probably soon to fall down the memory hole:

More people than not believe that going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do, but that number has declined to 48 percent in this poll, compared to 53 percent in April.

Any other amusing misprints, on either side of the debate?
posted by effugas (35 comments total)

I can't find the poll data itself, but I'm assuming there were a number of "Don't know" answers as well, which render the 48% greater than the, say, 42% who answered with a definitive "No".

So: Probably not a misprint.
posted by ssukotto at 6:49 PM on May 14, 2004

Hmmm. Quite accurate -- a 48/47/5 split would account for the numbers. Still -- it's not written particularly well.
posted by effugas at 6:52 PM on May 14, 2004

*snicker*
posted by keswick at 7:01 PM on May 14, 2004

That's SO COOL.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 7:04 PM on May 14, 2004

Embarrassed?
posted by Kwantsar at 7:18 PM on May 14, 2004

Why would ANYONE still be for the war?
Don't these idiots see how they are being manipulated? Isn't anyone as angry as I am that 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudi Arabians, Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian, and yet we did not go to war with Saudi Arabia? Isn't anyone else mad that the anthrax attacker roams free? Isn't anyone else mad that the strain of anthrax they found all over turned out to be a U.S. military strain of anthrax, indicating the attack was internal, yet this vital piece of information fell down the memory hole and Americans falsely believe al Qaeda was behind these attacks? Isn't anyone else angry that Bin Laden's whole purpose for attacking us was to get the American infidels the hell out of Saudi Arabia and to unite the Arab world... and... for some reason, I saw it reported on the news (around the middle of the wartime coverage) that we were pulling our troops from Saudi Arabia. Not to mention our actions in Iraq have done nothing but unite the Arab world in ways Bin Laden could never have done himself. I mean hell... we're giving Bin Laden everything he wanted! The crashing of the twin towers now symbolizes the fall of America... something Bin Laden could never accomplish, but something we've done to ourselves. I don't see how anyone who has all the facts can support this garbage.
posted by banished at 8:01 PM on May 14, 2004

Isn't anyone as angry as I am that 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudi Arabians, Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian, and yet we did not go to war with Saudi Arabia?

Yes, but they've supposed to lower oil prices before the election, so that will make everything okay.
posted by homunculus at 8:18 PM on May 14, 2004

Ahh the oil... *rubs fingers together*, of course, $$$ and economic ties.
posted by banished at 8:27 PM on May 14, 2004

banished - you must, like, be a reader or something.

You'll feel much better if you stop that and only watch TV, especially FOX, for your news.
posted by troutfishing at 8:58 PM on May 14, 2004

Seriously, guess what? - close to a majority of Americans also disbelieve in Evolution.

Your opinions are in the minority although the facts are clearly on your side.

But - as an articulate voice on the net - you're also an opinion leader (for what it's worth).
posted by troutfishing at 9:11 PM on May 14, 2004

Embarrassed?

Quite.

Still -- a majority of the country in this country aren't sure going to war was the right thing to do, and they said so in about the least informative way possible. Thus, SCLM.

--Dan
posted by effugas at 9:14 PM on May 14, 2004

They're still for war because to withdraw now, they believe,
would cause Iraq to descend into chaos. This logic is familiar to anyone alive during the Vietnam era, although, unfortunately,
we were stupid enough to destabilize a region that is far more dangerous and important to our national security. How much better it would have been to have spent all this money finding something besides oil to fuel our economy.

Of course, some people also buy into the refusal to withdraw and admit defeat because then we would lose credibility as a world power, another familiar Vietnam era argument.

But no matter which administration is in power in a year, I expect a hasty retreat -- they'll hold elections, declare victory and haul ass.
posted by Slagman at 9:17 PM on May 14, 2004

Of course, some people also buy into the refusal to withdraw and admit defeat because then we would lose credibility as a world power, another familiar Vietnam era argument.

An old argument, yes, but an untrue one?
posted by Kwantsar at 9:25 PM on May 14, 2004

If I may be pedantic for a moment, CNN's statement logically unpacks to "More people believe that going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do than do NOT believe that going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do".

This is different than "More people believe that going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do than believe that going to war with Iraq was NOT the right thing to do".

The latter statement still makes sense in the case of the 48% figure by reason of the undecideds; the former statement doesn't. CNN meant to say the latter, but they ended up saying the former. Therefore, they deserve to be mocked - well done effugas.
posted by jeffj at 9:30 PM on May 14, 2004

Isn't anyone as angry as I am that 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudi Arabians, Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian, and yet we did not go to war with Saudi Arabia?

i'm more angry that we haven't developed alternative fuel sources such that we no longer have to care what saudi arabia or anybody else thinks of us. as it is, bush isn't going to start a war with saudi arabia; neither would gore, and neither will kerry. so i'm not sure what your anger has to do with this poll. the bush administration claims it couldn't have prevented 9/11, and fundamentally they're right; it's the last fifty years of american federal government that has failed to formulate a plan for getting us the hell out of the middle east.
posted by kjh at 9:48 PM on May 14, 2004

An old argument, yes, but an untrue one?

you cannot lose what you do not have.

and, hey, kwantsar, if your going to be my namesake, lets see some truly cutting sarcasm, huh?
posted by quonsar at 12:13 AM on May 15, 2004

I love this retarded "we should've spent the money on INVENTING another SOURCE of ENERGY" like there's something we've just been overlooking. Unbelievable.
posted by techgnollogic at 12:37 AM on May 15, 2004

techgnollogic,

You're picking nits. kjh didn't say "we should've spent the money on INVENTING another SOURCE of ENERGY." khj said "we haven't developed alternative fuel sources..."which we should do and is only good sense. Who's retarded?
posted by wsg at 12:58 AM on May 15, 2004

We thought about it, but couldn't decide whether to stick the windmill in your ass or your mouth. Which end does the hot air come out of again?
posted by trondant at 1:03 AM on May 15, 2004

I find the argument about Iraq descending into chaos quite a tough one to stomach. How many people who use that as a reason to stay involved in Iraq had any interest in the country or what was happening there before the war? I don't want to sound like the proverbial left-wing moaner, but groups like Voices In The Wilderness who defied the UN embargo (in order to help the people of Iraq) were marginalised and had very little real support.

US foreign policy in the Middle East is akin to taking a very big stick and hitting a wasp's nest. Allowing Sharon to pretty much decide policy towards Israel, the embargo against Syria, the instability in Afghanistan, I can't see where it's going.
posted by xpermanentx at 1:46 AM on May 15, 2004

For an extra 25 billion dollars I am prepared to stick a windmill in my ass for researching purposes.

Just in case somebody wanted to spend that money on something useful
posted by sebas at 3:38 AM on May 15, 2004

I wasn't for the war, but I hope we stay over there long enough to at least fix everything we a-sploded. otherwise, we'd look even worse to the rest of the world.
posted by mcsweetie at 4:51 AM on May 15, 2004

We are doing to ourselves what the enemy could not.
posted by techgnollogic at 7:10 AM on May 15, 2004

wait! let's put the windmill in 111's ass!
posted by quonsar at 7:39 AM on May 15, 2004

done and done. Did I mention that the windmill is ribbed?
posted by trondant at 8:59 AM on May 15, 2004

cool, the national review. I wonder if this issue will have anything about "the left" in it?
posted by mcsweetie at 9:52 AM on May 15, 2004

If you can't attack the content, go after the carrier, is that it?
posted by techgnollogic at 10:23 AM on May 15, 2004

it's an editorial. what content? I don't believe, "Rumsfeld and Meyers have presided over two amazingly successful wars" and are therefore above criticism is true and I could detail why but there's already several threads here with far better writers that make the point better than I can. if you want, you can check them out. alternately, you can choose to continue reading the national review.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:47 AM on May 15, 2004

techgnollogic,
if you search y2karl's recent comments you'll find lots of links disproving with stats each and every factoid (example: "Iraqis have more electricity now than in Saddam's days") that the National Review guy is using to try and prop up his "Rummy rulez" love letter.
it's OK to love Rumsfeld, and lust for him. it's just uncool to try to whip up "facts" to prop up that thing. just say "I love him because he killed lots of non-USians and talks real tough and doesn't like Euro-weenies". but really, do not mention Iraq if you're trying to make Rummy look good..
I also like the way he accuses -- who else -- Clinton of wimping out of Somalia (we all know how gung-ho and supportive of their President's war effort congressional republicans were back then, I guess)
posted by matteo at 1:24 PM on May 15, 2004

Is the point of this FPP that CNN was confusing Americans with people, or am I missing something?
posted by biffa at 5:30 PM on May 15, 2004

The point was that support for going to war just dropped below 50%, and still they're spinning it as "more people than not wanted to go to war". When I posted it, I forgot about the "don't knows", but it seems to me that "There is no longer a majority opinion in America that going to Iraq was the right thing to do" is a better summary of the numbers.
posted by effugas at 5:41 PM on May 15, 2004

I love this retarded "we should've spent the money on INVENTING another SOURCE of ENERGY" like there's something we've just been overlooking. Unbelievable.

the only thing i find "unbelievable" is the suggestion that our current situation is really the best we can do.
posted by kjh at 5:49 PM on May 15, 2004

You know what we could try some time is peace. Just to see what happens.
posted by Outlawyr at 7:39 PM on May 15, 2004

I didn't suggest that our current situation is the best we can do. On the contrary, we will continue to make all sorts of amazing progress in the various fields of energy efficiency and renewability, but the suggestion that there is some magic bullet out there just waiting for a few billion dollars to make it all possible is fantasy. When it comes to energy production and consumption, the scale of demand and the realities of thermodynamics leave no wiggle room for such an overlooked solution to simply emerge. The idea that the powers that be are keeping the world addicted to fossil fuels because its their feeding trough of choice is ludicrous. No change will come that is not gradual. No solution will be found that is not slow or expensive or both. And I'm not talking just $50 Billion expensive, either. The conspiratorial attitude of "Damn the Military-Industrial Complex!" does nothing to assist in cleaning up the environment, or providing for our long-term energy needs.
posted by techgnollogic at 12:40 AM on May 16, 2004

Since when is correcting misprints an example of "the memory hole"? Please.
posted by dagnyscott at 10:49 AM on May 17, 2004