It's a push poll. It shows the effect of their propasganda campaign and measures the susceptibility of those polled to the propaganda.
And 99.99 percent have absolutely no knowledge of the actual plan.
What oh what is that? 100,000? 80,000? 50,000? According to the media its 20. Significant.
For the record, a FoxNews opinion dynamics poll yesterday showed almost the opposite...that over 60% of the FoxNews polled did not think the resistance was greater than expected. The fact that Will Lester and AP, CNN, ABC, CBS got these results condemns them, not the administration. Lying weasel pessimists choosing to believe Iraqi Info propaganda rather than CENTCOM, President Bush and SOD Rumsfeld. Ptui!
are we there yet? .
are we there yet? .
are we there yet?.
are we there yet?.
are we there yet?.
are we there yet?.
are we there yet?.
are we there yet?.
are we there yet?.
are we there yet?.
are we there yet?.
are we there yet?.
are we there yet?.
are we there yet?.
are we there yet?.
are we there yet?.
are we there yet?.
are we there yet?.
are we there yet?.
are we there yet?.
are we there yet?
Propaganda doesn't just involve the art of lying so cleverly that people don't realize it. It also involves the art of telling the truth so cleverly people don't pick up on the real agenda.
Propaganda, by my definition, is the introduction of information in such a way as to reshape public opinion. Let's look at this article.
Polls: U.S. Misjudged Iraq Resistance
Associated Press ^ | March 28, 2003 | Will Lester
Why this title? Inside we find that seven in ten citizens of the United States back the war effort. That could have been the lead, but it's impact would have been positive. Instead we are told 5.5 in ten think United States' leadership goofed. That's the message they want to come through loud and clear.
Title: Negative (non-supportive of the war effort / a blatant attack on morale)
WASHINGTON - More than half the Americans think the United States underestimated how much resistance the Iraqi army would put up against a U.S. invasion, and even more expect this country to face a significant number of casualties in a war that could last months, new polls say.
Here we are told the majority think the United States' leadership goofed, significant casualties are coming and this could last months.
First Paragraph: Three negatives either substantiated or introduced (non-supportive of the war effort/ a blatant attack on morale)
Public support for the war remains strong. At least seven in 10 back the effort now that U.S. troops are fighting in Iraq.
Here is the obligatory positive, but note the disclaimer. There are two important things to note here. One is fairly obvious, in that it says, "...now that US troops are fighting in Iraq." Antoherwords, sure it's over seventy perecent, but that's because our troops are on the ground. The implication is some of the respondants wouldn't support this effort otherwise. That's another off-handed attack on support.
Next I'd like to propose that these agencies are in this for the long haul. By reporting the seventy percent support figure now, these orgs are setting a pretty high mark that will contrast very well to meet their goals, later on. When support wains to 62%, these folks will have a field day pointing it out. More to follow...
Second Paragraph: One postive comment that had the sparkle tarnished by a disclaimer. (This is another example of being non-supportive of the war effort, even the good news was "suspect" / another blatant attack on morale)
More than half, 55 percent, say the United States underestimated Iraqi resistance to invasion, according to a CBS News poll. Two-thirds in that poll said they think the war will last months, up from four in 10 late last week who expected that duration.
This is simply a rehash of paragraph one. The negativism in paragraph one wasn't enough if only stated once, so they left out the exact percentages and repeated it here. Message: Bad news is worthy of repeating, good news is reported once and explained away.
Third Paragraph: Here two negatives are repeated. (non-supportive of the war effort/ a blatant attack on morale)
Eight in 10, 82 percent, said they think a significant number of casualties will result, up from 37 percent in the opening days of the war, according to an
ABC-Washington Post poll. Before the war, almost two-thirds in that poll said they thought there would be a significant number of casualties.
This is also a rehash of the first paragraph. It buttresses the public perception of mass casualites ahead. What possible good could the reporting of this figure produce? Someone above mentioned push polls. That is exactly what this is. It's introducing a topic for the public to mull over. This will be repeated in upcoming days to convince people that everyone else but them knows what's just ahead, they better get on the band wagon and accept more casualties are coming, if they want to be "with it". This is just blatant mind numbing hysteria served up on a cold plate.
Paragraph four: One massive disinformation effort from beginning to end. (non-supportive of the war effort/ a blatant attack on morale, and a flagrant attempt to instill a public mindset regarding war casualties, and fear of what the war will turn into)
The growing worries about casualties and the length of the war won't immediately affect public support as long as people think the U.S. military is making progress, said Robert Shapiro, a public opinion specialist at Columbia University.
Here we have the introduction of a Public Opinion Speicialist from Columbia U. Let me see, something like 90% of our university professors are avout leftsists, what could be gained by introducing this man into this discussion? Let's continue and see.
"The public will accept casualties as long as there are indications of success in the war effort," Shapiro said. "What's really crucial here are the perceptions of effectiveness and performance."
Okay, there it is. Shapiro doesn't really say much. The imporant thing here is his framing of this subject. You are now allowed to think of this in terms of "effectiveness and peformance". That's what your guidelines should be. Remember that. Thanks Mr. Shapiro. And who will shape our perceptions of that "effectiveness and performance"? If you said CNN-Time, ABC, CBS and the Associated Press, you get a gold star.
Paragraph's five and six: These paragraphs saw the introduction of an "expert" on public opinion. This man was trotted out to convince you that you need to keep a close eye on the Bush administration and the Generals running this war. If they don't produce within a short period, you should rightly consider withdrawing support of this effort.
Once again... (non-supportive of the war effort/ a blatant attack on morale, the introduction of a tool that can be used to justify withdrawing support)
Six in 10, 62 percent, in the CBS poll said removing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is worth the potential costs of the war, including the loss of life. About three in 10, 28 percent, said they feel nervous or edgy about the war.
This is another obligatory "good news" offering that is once again tarnished with a worthless factoid. Six in ten think we should be doing this, even if it means loss of life. But almost one third of our fellow citizens are worried sick over it.
Paragraph seven: (mildly supportive of the war effort/ not reported as the real morale boost it should be, tarnished with a worthless factoid.
Note that the good is burried in the middle to later parts of this article, and is counterbalanced by negative or worthless information.
Note that the bad news isn't counterbalanced in the same sentence or paragraph the way the good news is.
Just over half in a new CNN-Time poll said they believed the war against Iraq has been successful, 8 percent said unsuccessful, and 37 percent said somewhere in between.
Once again, the push pole is at work here. People are told to think of this in success/non-successful terms. "Be critical folks, this Bush administration shouldn't get a free pass you know."
This is not supportive of the war effort.
Paragraph eight: (non-supportive of the war effort/a mild attack on morale by linking our judgements to immediate outcomes and not long term goals)
But people indicated they are uneasy about the potential impact on the economy.
Now they introduce the economy into the equasion. This shameful approach is meant to instill unease with regard to what our financial situations will be like in six months, once again not what the long term goal for the Iraqi people should be.
Paragraph nine: (non-supportive of the war effort/ blatant attempt to link perceptions to a lagging economy) Implication: ("Isn't the economy more improtant than that far off place named Iraq?)
Two-thirds in the ABC-Post poll said they support the Senate's proposed reduction to $350 billion of President Bush's proposed tax cut of $726 billion. They were evenly split on whether to eliminate the proposed tax cut altogether.
Well, if you can't take Bush down one way, you can try another. Typical liberal ideology at work
Paragraph ten: (non-supportive of the war effort/ blatant attempt to take Bush down any way possible)
The ABC-Post poll of 508 adults and the CNN-Time poll of 1,014 adults were taken Thursday. The CBS poll of 868 adults was taken Wednesday and Thursday. The error margin for the CBS and the CNN-Time poll was plus or minus 3 percentage points, and it was 4.5 percentage points for the ABC-Post poll.
Blah blah blah... And Gore was going to win the election running away. These folks haven't had a poll right since Fred Flintston was running them.
There were about two positive notes to this whole song and dance. Those were nipped in the bud. All the rest was aimed at killing any good feelings about the war. "Yeah sure, things may look decent today, but nothing but darkness is just ahead."
Our national media has come about as close as they can to treason and sedition as they can get without being called on it. Frankly, I am sick of it!
Questions not asked. (Food for thought)
Are you amazed at the technological advancement of our armed services?
Are you glad our military has the capability to liberate people who have been living under terror for decades?
Are you proud to be a citizen of the United States knowing you are bringing freedom to tens of millions of humans?
Are you proud of Bush's stance on this war?
Are you glad to have such fine young men and women representing you in harms way?
Are you disgusted by people like us, who will do anything to try to deminish any rightous perceptions of this campaign, and kill any remnance of will to execute it?
And Ken Adelman told us it would be a cakewalk, was it Rummy who said they would be throwing flowers? Of course Mr. Perle lead the choir from which he has now resigned.
Preemptive attack, a doctrine of evil.
One consistent theme has stood out the last three days or so. The liberal press is promoting a deliberate affront on our current administration that has implied these things;
1. The battle plan is failing to achieve the desired results and the Military and Government leadership were way overconfident and their assessments as to Iraqi resistence were poor at best.
2. That the Iraqi people, so far as the media are concerned are not supporting the overthrow of Saddam's regime.
3. That there are Top Generals in our military who are openly pessemistic about the war efforts thus far.
4. That the French assessment that a quagmire and loss of civilian life wrought by our soldiers makes war a failed proposition.
5. That there is on one hand, much consternation and disagreement within the Bush Administration while on the other that there is a concerted conspiracy by members of the administration to limit facts and even deny facts about the war effort.
Clearly the troops in Iraq are getting feedback from the states. Clearly public opinion and support means so much to them. Clearly it is in the best interest of all of us to be aware and informed about the future of our country.
Military Experts Pleased with Operation Iraqi Freedom Thus Far .
Can Dust Storms, Chemical Weapons And Lying Media Reports Threaten Operation Iraqi Freedom?.
French PM scorns U.S. high-tech claims in Iraq war (BARF ALERT).
Shame on U.S. bullies (BARF and LAUGH ALERT).
As for the unblinking eye, post some sources to back up your words.
How in the hell would they know? Put me down for one billion days - as good a guess as any other randomly-polled bozo.