Gallup Misleads on Iraq Not Funding After a Date Certain Proposal

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 12:02:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Are they stupid or are they lying? Yet again, the pollsters seem incapable of accurately describing the Reid-Feingold framework. Let's remind again what is being proposed - after a date certain, March 31, 2008, the Congress will not fund the Iraq Debacle. How could you ask the American People about this? Here's how:

Would you support a proposal that provides a binding withdrawal date from Iraq by announcing that after March 31, 2008, the war will not be funded?

Because that is the proposal. How does Gallup describe it?

[Would you support a] candidate who supports legislation that would cut off funding for the war in Iraq.

This is obviously an inaccurate description. It implies immediate defunding. And that is a false description. Gallup insists on falsely describing the proposal. The question is why?

The false description drives the results. By 58 to 36%, the American People are more likely to support a candidate who will ONLY support a bill that has a timetable in it. But by 60 to 33% the American People are less likely to support a candidate who supports a bill that would cut off funding.

How can these results be reconciled? By understanding the falsity of Gallup's poll. If we withdraw the troops, we will obviously be "cutting off funding for the war." When? When we withdraw the troops. So announcing a date certain when the Congress will not fund the war is announcing a withdrawal date.

58% of the American People would be more likely to support a candidate that ONLY supports legislation that has firm timelines. So what happens when the President vetoes that bill?

Well according to Gallup, The American People want the same bill sent to the President over and over again, UNLESS of course, that means not funding the troops, in which they do not want that.

Then what do they want? You can't be for both. And of course the American People are not for both. What they are for is the ending of the Iraq Debacle.

Let's make it simple:

Would you support the Congress doing whatever is necessary to withdraw US troops from Iraq?

Or to make Gallup happy:

Would you support the Congress' setting a binding withdrawal date of March 31, 2008 by announcing that after March 31, 2008, it will not fund the Iraq War?

How do you think that will poll?

< English Only Immigration, From The Left | A Cruel and Unusual Sentence >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Gallup Misleads on Iraq Not Funding After a Date Certain Proposal | 26 comments (26 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Hmm, maybe MYDD could poll that?! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 01:25:03 PM EST

;-)

: They probably don't want the answer. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Edger on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 04:16:51 PM EST

Not just Gallup (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Demi Moaned on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 10:32:49 PM EST

But haven't many of the Democrats in Congress implicitly accepted Gallup's characterization, as Greenwald argued?

Too many (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Edger on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 02:34:34 AM EST

have not only accepted it, too many are responsible for spreading it even though they know better.


The entire debate about NOT funding (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Edger on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 11:12:17 AM EST

the debacle in Iraq revolves around this one point, of which there are huge mis-perceptions and an incredible amount of disinformation, i.e. lies, spread by republicans and democrats and trolls.

The Democratic Leadership apparently is afraid of not funding the Iraq occupation either because they are afraid of being attacked by Bush and the GOP for not funding the troops, or because they want to continue the occupation.

They know it is a lie when Bush says it.

Yet they turn right around and tell people (repeating the lie) that advocating not funding the occupation is not funding the troops.

Emergency supplemental funding for a war or for an occupation is not for the troops. It never has been for the troops. It will never be for the troops.

NOT passing emergency supplemental funding does not hurt the troops. It never has hurt the troops. It will never hurt the troops.

Not passing emergency supplemental funding is simply NOT FUNDING the occupation. That is all it is.

Defunding The Iraq War Is Supporting The Troops:

You Can't Hurt a Troop By Defunding a War:
The funding is not for the troops.
When President George Bush claims that the money is for the troops, he is quite simply lying. The funding is not for the troops.
When Senator Barack Obama or Senator Carl Levin claims to want to pressure Bush to end the war, while at the same time promising to fund the war forever in the name of funding the troops, we are being told something that cannot possibly make any sense. The funding is not for the troops. It is for the war. You can't end the war while providing it. You can't hurt a troop by denying it.

When the Democrats or anyone else claim that the money is for the troops, they, just like George Bush, are quite simply lying. The funding is not for the troops.

The TROOPS are funded by regular appropriations. DOD budget. Emergency supplemental funding has nothing to do with "funding the troops".

It does buy, among other things such as logistical support from Halliburton, Parsons, and DynCorp, fuel, in theater equipment maintenance, bullets, cluster bombs, etc., etc., IOW all the "stuff" needed to continue the occupation. The troops use that "stuff" in the continuance of that occupation, and to defend themselves and stay alive (as best they can) while continuing that occupation. Defunding the occupation of Iraq and withdrawing or redeploying the troops does not hurt the troops. It helps them to stay alive.

Emergency supplemental funding is only for the occupation. When Bush says differently, or when the Democratic Leadership says differently, or when a troll here says differently.... it is a lie.

The "war" has been funded with emergency supplemental funding for years. There is plenty of money for withdrawing in regular budget without the emergency supplemental the Democrats just passed.

"Since 9/11, Congress has passed at least one emergency bill to cover war costs, making supplemental spending the method of choice for the majority of funding for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror," Alexander added. "Of the $510 billion spent thus far, $331.8 billion (about 65 percent) has come from supplemental spending legislation. If the so-called "bridge fund" included in the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill is included, the total rises to $401.8 billion. That means nearly 80 percent of all funding for these wars was the result of emergency and supplemental spending, not regular budgetary means."
The total funds requested by the Defense Department for emergency spending is $163.4 billion, including $70 billion already provided as part of DOD's regular fiscal year appropriations plus a new supplemental request of $93.4 billion.
"If enacted, DOD's funding would increase by 40 percent above the previous year and would more than double from the FY2004 funding level," the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report says.
--War And Occupation Funding: More Cooking The Books By Bush And Pentagon?

As Greenwald said:

Both of the premises which Alter sets forth here are correct: (a) de-funding does not even arguably constitute "endangerment or abandonment of the troops," but (b) "Americans have been convinced that it does." And therein one finds what is the most extraordinary and telling fact of our political landscape. Namely, our Iraq war policy was just determined, in large part if not principally, by a complete myth: that de-funding proposals constitute an abandonment or, more ludicrously still, "endangerment" of the troops.

Emergency Supplementals (none / 0) (#18)
by Edger on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 11:17:10 AM EST

besides the things I mentioned above, also pay for:

a U.S. force in Iraq that is effectively double the size that most people are aware of, and a system where national duty is outbid by profits:
Many Americans are under the impression that the US currently has about 145,000 active duty troops on the ground in Iraq. What is seldom mentioned is the fact that there are at least 126,000 private personnel deployed alongside the official armed forces. These private forces effectively double the size of the occupation force, largely without the knowledge of the US taxpayers that foot the bill.
Working for U.S. companies like Blackwater, Triple Canopy and DynCorp and companies from other countries, according to Scahill's investigations:
Some contractors make in a month what many active-duty soldiers make in a year. Indeed, there are private contractors in Iraq making more money than the Secretary of Defense and more than the commanding generals.

I repeat, Emergency Supplemental Funding is not for the troops. It is only for the occupation. When Bush says differently, or when the Democratic Leadership says differently, or when a troll here says differently.... it is a lie.

It's time for the Democrats in Congress to stop lying and start being honest with the public.

The lies are killing the sons and daughters of that public.


A video (none / 0) (#19)
by Edger on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 11:50:17 AM EST

of Jeremy Scahill's testimony to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense about the impact of private military contractors on the conduct of the Iraq War is here.


David Obey - last year (Thomas 2006) (none / 0) (#22)
by Edger on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 04:10:43 PM EST

I. THE TRUE COST OF THE WAR
Congress appropriates funding for the Iraq war much like the Administration prosecutes it: recklessly, and without being honest with the American people.
Once again, funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars--$50 billion in this case--are provided as an `emergency supplemental' in this bill. All told, Congress will have provided the Defense Department with $450 billion of emergency funding for this war.
To treat funding for the Iraq war as an unexpected emergency is a perversion of the term. By way of comparison, the Vietnam War required only a single supplemental, after which it was financed through the regular budget process.
While not an emergency, this funding is provided as such because it is politically expedient. It allows the Administration and the Congress to avoid the budgetary tradeoffs and to hide the full cost of the war. It is part of the Administration's strategy of providing the facts about Iraq on the installment plan.
In April of 2003, the President signed the first Iraq supplemental providing $62.6 billion for the Defense Department. This was after the President's budget director told the New York Times that the war would cost between $50 and $60 billion.
In November of 2003, when the President signed a second supplemental providing $64.9 billion for the Defense Department, the White House termed it a `one-time, wartime supplemental.' Nine months later Congress provided $25 billion of additional emergency funding.
In May of 2005, the President signed a third supplemental providing $75.7 billion for the Defense Department and told us that democracy was taking root in Iraq. Seven months later, as civil war rocked Iraq, Congress provided an additional $50 billion of emergency funding.
This week, Congress passed another $65.8 billion supplemental. The same day, in a surprise visit to Iraq, the President once again linked the Iraq war and the attacks of September 11th--an assertion that is patently false and that only he and the Vice President appear to still believe.
In this bill, the House will approve another $50 billion more in emergency funding for Iraq to cover operations through the spring of 2007. As was the case with previous Iraq supplementals, these costs will be tacked on to this President's greatest legacy--a massive $300 billion plus deficit. The result is that future generations will be forced to pay the financial costs of the President's failed Iraq policy.
For several years, I have asked the Administration to come forward with 5-year estimates of the war costs so that Congress could get a better sense of how to balance the books. The FY 2005 Defense Appropriations Conference Report included a general provision requiring the Administration to do just that. No such report was ever provided. The President chose to waive the requirement by certifying in writing that providing these cost estimates would harm national security.
The only harm that would come from providing estimates of future war costs would be to the political fortunes of those who insist on funding this war through emergency supplementals instead of being honest with the public about the war's real cost. More than three years into this war it is clear that honesty is too much to expect from this Administration.

Boston Globe September 2006 (none / 0) (#23)
by Edger on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 04:19:32 PM EST

Congressional Analysis: Cost of Iraq war nearly $2b a week

The United States maintains it is not building permanent military bases in Iraq or Afghanistan, where the local population distrusts America's long-term intentions.
But for the first time, a major factor in the growth of war spending is the result of a dramatic rise in ``investment costs," or spending needed to sustain a long-term deployment of American troops in the two countries, the report said. These include the additional purchases of protective equipment for troops, such as armored Humvees, radios, and night-vision equipment; new tanks and other equipment to replace battered gear from Army and Marine Corps units that have been deployed numerous times in recent years; and growing repair bills for damaged equipment, what the military calls ``reset" costs.

So the only way the funding can be said to be "for the troops" is if the intention is to keep them in Iraq for many years.

The Pentagon, which had previously made public its own estimate of operating costs, has not released up-to-date war costs.
The Congressional Research Service report estimates that after Congress approves two pending bills, the total war costs since Sept. 11, 2001, will reach about $509 billion. Of that, $379 billion will cover the cost of operations in Iraq, $97 billion will be the price tag for Afghanistan operations, and $26 billion will have gone to beefed-up security at US military bases around the world.
...
Another major war cost is for infrastructure -- bases, landing strips, repair shops -- for the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. These ``operations and maintenance" costs remained steady at about $40 billion per year in 2003, 2004, and 2005, but have spiked to more than $60 billion this year.
Those factors alone, however, are ``not enough to explain" the spiraling increase in operating costs, according to the report.
``You would expect [operating costs] to level off if you have the same level of people," said the report's principal author, Amy Belasco, a national defense specialist at the Congressional Research Service. ``You shouldn't have as much cost to fix buildings that were presumably repaired when you got there. It's a bit mysterious."
The Pentagon has not provided Congress with a detailed accounting of all the war funds, making it impossible to conduct a full, independent estimate of how much Americans are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan -- or to predict what future costs might be.

: The Institute for Policy Analysis (none / 0) (#24)
by Edger on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 04:25:35 PM EST

The Iraq Quagmire: The Mounting Costs of War and the Case for Bringing Home the Troops
Human Costs... Security Costs... Economic Costs... Social Costs
I couldn't do a cost/benefit analysis.
I couldn't find any 'benefit'.

edger (none / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 03:30:03 PM EST

Huh??

It does buy, among other things such as logistical support from Halliburton, Parsons, and DynCorp, fuel, in theater equipment maintenance, bullets, cluster bombs, etc., etc., IOW all the "stuff" needed to continue the occupation. The troops use that "stuff" in the continuance of that occupation, and to defend themselves and stay alive

In otherwords, if the troops had some ham they'd have some ham and eggs if they had some eggs...
but the defundung that really is funding prevented the supply chain from having a skillet to fry the ham and eggs they don't have.

Edger, your argument is just plain dumb. And the American people can see you coming a mile off.


Stop lying, ppj. (none / 0) (#21)
by Edger on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 03:36:07 PM EST

Even with out of context partial quotes. It just marginalizes you further than you've already done to yourself, if that's possible.

You don't really think people are so dumb they can't see through you, do you?

Or do you?


: edger (none / 0) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 08:46:32 PM EST

Everytime someone points out the problems in your comments, it is always "out of context."
You must be the most out of context guy in the Universe.
You said what you said and I just sliced and diced it. Quit complaining, moaning and whining..
BTW - You like to use the lie word.... As we both know, if I want to I can show the thread where you called me a liar, and when I immediately proved you 100% factually wrong you didn't have the manhood to apologize. If you like, I can do it again.
And you speak of "marginalize..." LOL.

BTD: have you clicked (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 01:43:55 PM EST

this ad and analysed Dodd's proposal yet?

Chris Dodd was the first Presidential candidate to co-sponsor Feingold-Reid and oppose the latest blank-check Iraq supplemental. When the Congress debates the DoD Authorization Bill, he will offer legislation that will end the Iraq war.
Show your support by becoming a citizen co-sponsor right now!
Read more...

Dodd is his most recent (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 01:58:12 PM EST

endorsement!


I'm very aware of that--and not all that (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 02:00:24 PM EST

recent. I haven't clicked the ad but wondered why it doesn't just say Reid/Feingold, if that is what Dodd continues to advocate.


: I think one of the dates (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 02:06:28 PM EST

is slightly different.

Uhmmm (none / 0) (#7)
by talex on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 04:06:35 PM EST

Dodd endorses the Reid-Feingold Bill - not a framework.
.
.
.
And speaking of frameworks. Gallup is exactly right in how they pose their question. They are not asking about a Framework because there is no Framework proposed or endorsed by any candidate.

What they are asking is a 'generic' type of question that would include 'any' type of bill that would cut off funding for the war in Iraq". Which ends up being 33% for and 60% against.

Then in the very next question (as laid out in the article) they do ask about a timeline bill:

Thinking now specifically about how candidates' positions on the war in Iraq would affect your vote, would you be more likely of less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who...?
Only support legislation on the war that includes a timetable for removing U.S troops from Iraq.
More Likely 58%
Less likely 36%

So the question of timelines is asked and people are in favor of that.

Now Armando can ask any question he want here but the re-formulated Gallup question he asks is not relative to Gallup's questions because the one they did ask is a 'generic' defunding question (33% for and 60% against) and the timeline question is already asked as you can see for yourself.

And again they are not asking about a Framework because there is no Framework proposed or endorsed by any candidate.


Ha! (none / 0) (#9)
by talex on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 04:50:08 PM EST

On second thought there are two candidates who support defunding the war. They are third )or fourth?) tier candidates Mike 'The Crazy Uncle' Gravel and Dennis Kucinich.

So that is who endorses defunding or a date certain of however one want to describe it.

Ha! Not exactly a glowing endorsement from a 'credible' candidate.


I look forward (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by andgarden on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 05:19:41 PM EST

to your next two posts today.


Well Here (1.00 / 1) (#11)
by talex on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 05:56:03 PM EST

this is the third and probably the last today. Enjoy it.

Now what can I say to make good use of it. Should I point out as usual you have nothing productive to say. Should I point out that you have nothing meaningful or original to say? Naw, I shouldn't say that.

But what I will say is that you can't in an intelligent way disagree with what I posted or you would have.

The point is that Gallup did ask the timeline question but that was 'hidden' from you because you are 'expected' as most posters everywhere are to not bother to read and assess the poll for yourself. Now if you think about it there is a message to you in that 'expectation'. I'll let you figure it out what it is for yourself.


: How do you manage (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Edger on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 05:59:44 PM EST

to be so wrong 5 times in such a short comment, talex?

I think the polling shows just about everyone (none / 0) (#6)
by Geekesque on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 02:35:49 PM EST

wishes Bush were out of office already.

Aint that hard (none / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 08:19:45 AM EST

The poll shows that people want a time table (58-36) but don't want defunding. (60-33)

Okaaay (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 10:35:03 AM EST

So when you can't have the timetable, then what?

Jim, I always try to credit you with some smarts, so try to display them here.


: BTD (1.00 / 1) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 11:12:45 PM EST

You seem to think I want to engage in a debate over time tables vs defunding. I don't.
Both are dumb and deserve no debate. But the American people clearly say no to defunding.
They say yes to a time table because the Demos have sold them this fairy tale that all we have to do is say "we be gone on XX" and the Iraqi's will just be able to solve the many problems they have.
Truth is that a time table will result in huge US troop losses unless the Demos cut a deal with Iran to not attack us as we leave. If Iran attacks you'll see 8 more years of a Repub Prez...
BTW - Please don't parse words by arguing over not funding vs defunding, etc., etc.
A rose by any other name, etc....The American people see right through that.
BTW - Love your snark. You're starting to paint a picture of your tactics.