Deceptive Questioning in Washington Post's McCain-Friendly Poll on Iraq

FAIR. Posted July 15, 2008.

The corporate media keeps giving McCain cover on his unpopular Iraq position.

Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
2 COMMENTS

Share and save this post:

Also in War on Iraq

U.S. Needs to Take in More Iraqi Refugees
Zainab Mineeia

How the U.S. Military Turned Me into a Terrorist
Aaron Glantz

The Stunning Costs of Keeping a Soldier's "Boots on the Ground" in Iraq
Jon Basil Utley

As More Troops Refuse to Deploy, Getting Conscientious Objector Status is an Uphill Battle
Sarah Lazare

Revealed: "Secret" Executions Being Carried Out in Saddam's Old Intelligence Headquarters
Robert Fisk

New Evidence Shows Bush Had No Plan to Catch bin Laden After 9/11
Gareth Porter

War on Iraq RSS Feed

Main AlterNet RSS Feed

The Washington Post reported on July 15 that the public is evenly split between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama's positions on ending the Iraq War. But the paper arrived at that conclusion based on a deceptively worded poll question.

Under the headline "Poll Finds Voters Split on Candidates' Iraq-Pullout Positions," the Post reported that their new poll "finds the country split down the middle between those backing Sen. Barack Obama's 16-month timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and those agreeing with Sen. John McCain's position that events, not timetables, should dictate when forces come home."

In the second to last paragraph, the Post noted, "This is the first time the Post/ABC poll has squared the two candidates' withdrawal plans against each other." But the question the Post asked did not actually "square" the candidates' plans; the Post offered a more or less accurate view of Obama's position, contrasted with a description of McCain's plan that seemed designed to attract increased support:

Obama has proposed a timetable to withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq within 16 months of his taking office. McCain has opposed a specific timetable and said events should dictate when troops are withdrawn. Which approach do you prefer--a timetable or no timetable?

The implication, of course, is that Obama favors one sort of withdrawal, while McCain favors another. But that is a misleading characterization of McCain's position, which can be read at his campaign website:

John McCain believes it is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. He strongly disagrees with those who advocate withdrawing American troops before that has occurred.

It would be a grave mistake to leave before Al-Qaeda in Iraq is defeated and before a competent, trained and capable Iraqi security force is in place and operating effectively.

McCain added:

Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected.

From his own campaign statements, withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq would not seem to be a high priority for McCain, who has often stressed the need to "win" the Iraq War. Though he has cautioned against making predictions, McCain has said he believes victory will come by the end of his first term: "By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won," McCain explained in a May 15 speech. Asked about his position later that day, McCain elaborated (Associated Press, 5/15/08): "It's not a timetable; it's victory. It's victory, which I have always predicted. I didn't know when we were going to win World War II; I just knew we were going to win."

But even "victory" would not necessarily mean withdrawal for McCain; he has said that he would be happy with a 100-year military presence in Iraq (Think Progress, 1/4/08):

As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al-Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

The Post could have presented the issue the way other recent polls have done:

--CNN (6/26-6/29/08)

"If you had to choose, would you rather see the next president keep the same number of troops in Iraq that are currently stationed there, or would you rather see the next president remove most U.S. troops in Iraq within a few months of taking office?"

Keep same number: 33 percent

View as a single page

See more stories tagged with: media, iraq, polling, mccain, washington post

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »

War on Iraq » Story Tools: EMAIL PRINT 2 COMMENTS

Comments	Turn comments off sitewide	Give us feedback »
Comments closed. The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.		View:
Some questions for John McCain regarding Vietnam, the military, Iraq and future US policies [Report this comment] Posted by: Iraan Ozono on Jul 15, 2008 4:40 PM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] You have repeatedly said that the US involvement in Vietnam was appropriate and justified, but poorly executed. Since you had such profound experiences there, it is important to understand your personal and professional views, since your sought role of Commander-in-Chief of the most militarily developed nation on the earth will require decisions affecting certainly Americans, but also likely millions of people around the planet. Vietnam is an area that had been invaded, colonized, culturized, violently “Catholicized” and exploited over the centuries by China, France (twice), England and Japan. The partition after WWII into two foreign-ruled regions without consideration of the people living there over those centuries was a perpetuation of that injustice. North Vietnam was born from the expressed desire for freedom by the resident peoples against those colonizers. That the leader of that struggle, Ho Chi Minh, identified himself as a communist was perturbing to the US during these Cold War times, when the US was, somewhat paranoidly, squashing democratically elected governments in many places (Nicaraugua, Guatamala, El Salvador, Chile, (elsewise The Phillipines, Iran), using such weapons as torture, assassination, kidnapping, rigging of elections, murder, support of cruel and repressive leaders and arming of militaries that used terrorism against the civilian populations. Also the technique of direct military involvement, from land, sea and sky. Agent Orange, napalm, bombs (your expertise), and the terrorization of millions of innocent peasants were some of techniques used. The use of nuclear weapons to “blast [North Vietnam] back to The Stone Age” was seriously discussed. Revealed information (The Pentagon Papers, subsequent testimony by the Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and others) has shown how lies were used by several presidents, Democrat and Republican, to manipulate the citizens of the US to initiate, support and sustain the war. As these lies were eventually exposed, and the horrible costs were being summed, that support dissolved, we left, and……. ???? The costs of that war to the United States include 58,000 American lives and 350,000 casualties. It cost the US $133 Billion, started thousands of new drug addictions, sent a few hundred thousand more into homelessness, brought recurring nightmares to many, destroyed families, brought 100,000 suicides. It also resulted in between one and two million Vietnamese deaths. You likely caused some of those by your own actions as a naval bomber, and suffered both physically and mentally as a POW. Perhaps (and I know there are people, “good God-fearing American patriots” who will call for my death for this statement) as a fair consequence from another perspective? Certainly, one country’s hero is….?? For as political sophisticates we must consider the enemies perspective to be able to make rational decisions as a nation in a complex and rapidly changing world. Nuking them to hell does not seem a good approach. The latest war, the one in Iraq, bears some similarities, some differences with the one in Vietnam. Similarities seem to be intended domination and control of another country, lies from the top, and huge human and financial costs being hidden. I would like to know: What is the justification for US military involvement in Vietnam? How was that war mismanaged/ “poorly executed”? What is the outcome you would have preferred? What would the situation be now? What should we have learned? Regarding the parallel history that is Iraq…The same questions. As the most mightily armed and mistrusted nation on earth, with an established record of deceit and aggression… What should we do? [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » RE: Some questions for John McCain regarding Vietnam, the military, Iraq and future US policies Posted by: pana

Search:

» RE: Some questions for John McCain regarding Vietnam, the military, Iraq and future US policies Posted by: pana