Further, a clear majority, 61%, opposes a criminal investigation into whether torture was committed during the Bush administration. The White House has sent mixed messages on this matter.
On April 27, 2009, the most recent New York Times/CBS news poll was released.
Within that poll were a number of questions on the torture issue. Although there was no question asking respondents their views about having an investigation. There was a question that asked about Congress holding hearings. This question gives a distorted view about the general discussion about investigating torture because a lot of us who want investigations don't want Congress involved and would have answered no to that question. And because this was the only question about investigations it really does not give us much understanding about the level of support for investigations.
68. Do you want Congress to hold hearings to investigate whether the Bush administration’s treatment of detainees, the use of wiretaps and other Justice Department broke the law or don’t you think that’s necessary?
34% Want hearings
62% Don't think necessary
4% Don't know
Question 63 was a very encouraging question because it shows that the public does not think waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques are ever justified.
63. Do you think it is sometimes justified to use waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques from a suspected terrorist, or are these tactics never justified?
37% Justified
46% Never Justified
7% Depends
10% Don't know
The poll also shows that the public overwhelmingly believes that waterboarding is torture.
64. In a procedure known as “waterboarding,” interrogators produce the sensation of drowning in a restrained prisoner either by dunking him in water or pouring water over his face. Do you consider this procedure a form of torture, or not?
71% Torture
26% Not Torture
3% Don't Know
As in the other recently released polls we discover that the majority of the people with these views are not liberals.
How would you describe your views on most political matters? Generally do you think of yourself as a liberal, moderate or conservative?
22% Liberal
42% Moderate
29% Conservative
7% Don't know or N/A
For those of us who are trying to get the media to tell the truth on this issue, the question below is important. Americans still get most of their news from TV so this is where we should primarily direct our attention.
16% Newspapers
5% Radio
60% TV
15% Internet
1% Someplace else
2% Don't Know or N/A
The NYT story that accompanied the release of this poll only said this about the torture issue:
The poll found broad support for Mr. Obama’s approach on a variety of issues, including one of the most contentious: whether Congress should investigate the harsh interrogation tactics authorized by George W. Bush. Sixty-two percent of Americans share Mr. Obama’s view that hearings are unnecessary.
UPDATE: Question 63 might not be as positive as I first thought. See my post on the Pew poll.
"The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations under the Convention Against Torture.""I didn't authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency, that they had policy authorization, subject to the Justice Department's clearance. That's what I did.""The United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture, and so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture." (emphasis added)
"The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men." - Samuel Adams”
Drudge remains one of the most powerful figures in journalism. In the Web 2.0 era--with media outlets unveiling increasingly complex sites that feature multiple avenues for readers to contribute, from comments to Tweets--the Drudge Report doesn't look like much: just an old-fashioned layout consisting mostly of links to articles in other publications, alongside the occasional breaking news story of its own. And yet, because it draws up to 20 million hits per day--and, more importantly, because it is read religiously by Washington's reporters, political operatives, and cable news producers--the site retains a striking ability to dictate what appears in the mainstream press. Indeed, one of journalism's unofficial parlor games these days consists of mining Drudge's site for clues to his proclivities--so that one might figure out how to gain his favor and earn a valuable link.
Drudge owes both his stature and his accompanying fortune--sources believe he makes millions per year off his site--essentially to one thing: his appetite, during the Lewinsky era and afterward, for rummaging further into the lives of public figures than mainstream journalists were willing to go. And that's ironic when you consider the reason that his appearance at the Clinton concession speech created such a frenzy: For the past few years, Matt Drudge has gone almost completely underground.
After reading this piece I think that maybe the New Republic should seriously consider bringing back Stephen Glass, what do you think?.
MR. GREGORY: But there's--this is a question of leadership. Again, what critics would say, if you look at how this president handled the bonus question with AIG, he knew that in the scheme of things it was not the biggest deal to this administration. And yet when the politics shifted, he stood up and said, "Yeah, those bonuses are table--terrible, and I'm angry." Perhaps the leadership moment there was to say to the country, "Calm down, it's not the most important thing." Here on this memos now he seems to be shifting positions because he's got a left wing of his party that says there must be accountability from the Bush administration. The politics of looking backward are tricky.
MR. MEACHAM: They are hugely complicated, and my sense is we have not seen the end of this story. I think that they are keeping some options open. I'm personally in favor of a 9/12 Commission, where we find someone like Jack Danforth and Sam Nunn and do some something like the 9/11 Commission where you review the entire war on terror. Did rendition work, did the unmanned aerial drones, as well as the, the interrogation techniques? And I, I suspect that what they've shown themselves to be are quite pragmatic, quiet realistic. That was the AIG example you raised. He didn't want to jump on it. There was a huge moment of populist rage. But remember, it was just a moment. I mean, it burn, it burned very quickly. And what's going to happen, for all the stylistic points, all the temperament points, he's going to be judged on whether this stuff works.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
MR. MEACHAM: And whether the, whether the economy comes back and how he confronts still unforeseen national security challenges. (end of tape )
Missing from tape:
MR. GREGORY: Isn't this question about torture, Doris, if you put it in an historical context, we have to ask the large question, which is can you defeat an enemy like al-Qaeda without compromising the nation's character? Can you?
MS. GOODWIN: I...
MR. GREGORY: I mean, is that a debate that should go forward?
MS. GOODWIN: I mean, one has to hope so, that it's possible to do; as everybody was saying before, that the moral values of our nation are what we are known for abroad. I think the interesting question about why he wanted to look forward instead of back, I think he recognizes, as all leaders do, that you only have a certain number of resources in time, focus and imagination. And if the country goes off on a jag, you're going to lose--look at even now, we've been talking about torture this morning rather than maybe what should have been talked about if he had his way, which was this new speech that he just made about the importance of every time you have a tax increase you're going to have to use that to go for the tax cut. Every time you have a increased spending, you're going to have to have some sort of reduction in spending. That's a big thing he was talking about. You lose, you lose command of the airwaves with these things, and I think that was his initial instinct of hoping that somehow we could put this behind us. But once that elephant is in the room with that CIA memo...
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
MS. GOODWIN: ...options are lost. They're going to have to do something.
MR. MEACHAM: I, I, I disagree a little bit. I think that the, to go to your phrase of politics of looking back, is the mature thing to do. And if we are right about our first point that the people can handle a lot of things, then finding a smart, moderate, intelligent way to look back, find out what this history of these seven years can teach us about how to fight terrorism, as you say, can we do this and preserve our moral values? Well, Abraham Lincoln didn't. FDR didn't. Great war presidents have always committed great sins, whether it's suspending habeas corpus or detaining Japanese...
MS. GOODWIN: Incarcerating, incarceration.
MR. MEACHAM: ...Japanese-Americans. And so life is messy. Life is complicated. But we have to understand this history, because if we don't then we--I think we're unilaterally disarming, in a way, as we push forward.
MS. GOODWIN: How could I go against looking back at history? I must yield to your greater judgment.
MR. MEACHAM: There you go. There you go. There you go.
MR. GREGORY: Yeah. But, Doris, I--you know what's--talk to people, and they want to know, you know, what's he like? What are president's like? How do they make decisions? And somebody close to the president said he's got a very disciplined mind. What do we know about how he makes decisions?
MS. GOODWIN: Well, it sounds like one thing he does is to bring people into the room and ask them to debate different sides of the issue so that he can get alternative points of view, and that what I've heard him say, or other people say, is that he asks people who have been quiet in the room, "Speak up. I want to hear what you said." That's a very healthy thing. Again, going back to FDR, there was a certain time when he was in a room and he was explaining a pet project and everybody said, "Oh, it's great, Mr. President. It's great." George Marshall didn't say a word. He said, "George, what do you think?" and Marshall said, "I don't agree with you at all, Mr. President." Instead of being mad at him, he lifted him 34 feet up--not 34 feet up, 34 generals up to become his chief. And I think that's the way you want to have a president to make decisions, to have as many points of view there, listen to them and then think, think.
MR. GREGORY: All right, we're going to leave it there. Thanks both of you very much. And congratulations to Jon Meacham...
MS. GOODWIN: Yeah!
MR. GREGORY: ...who won the Pulitzer Prize for his biography on Andrew Jackson, "American Lion." Well deserved. And two Pulitzer Prize-winning authors and historians here, thank you very much.
We're going to continue this discussion on line with Jon and Doris, and ask some questions that our viewers have submitted via e-mail and Twitter. Watch our MEET THE PRESS Take Two Web extra. It's up this afternoon on our Web site. Plus, look for updates from me throughout the week. It's all at mtp.msnbc.com. And we'll be right back.
(Announcements)
MR. GREGORY: A program note before we go. Tonight as part of Green Week, MSNBC premieres "Future Earth: Journey to the End of the World" reported by Lester Holt. It airs at 10 PM Eastern and Pacific time.
That's all for today. We'll be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's MEET THE PRESS.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30406811/
A very interesting part to leave out, isn't it?
Now I'm sure MSNBC will say it was just an accident (or a ghost was in the machine) and maybe that's all it was, but you just gotta wonder - Did they not want us to see Doris Kerns Goodwin going off the reservation by disagreeing with the beltway narrative? Or did they not want us to see Jon Meacham make a very unconvincing and quite frankly a patently absurd argument about George W. Bush, torture and his place in history?
Can you imagine trying to pretend that George W. Bush is one of the"great war presidents" just because he committed great sins. How's that for turning history on it's head. We consider these "great sins" by other presidents as blots on their otherwise good record but Meacham evidently thinks that Bush is great because of his great sins even though he has a lousy record in every other area too. Gee, I wonder if Meacham will get another Pulitizer for pushing this kind of mushy, dishonest nonsense? Do you think maybe he's auditioning to write W's biography? He did say that his next book was going to be about George H.W. Bush...is he hoping to get W's story too?
UPDATE: Jon Meacham has written an eye opening piece for this weeks edition of Newsweek where Glenn Greenwald pointed out that he makes this disturbiing statement:
That is not to say presidents and vice presidents are always above the law; there could be instances in which such a prosecution is appropriate, but based on what we know, this is not such a case.
In viewing his comments from the Meet the Press video and his comment in the Newsweek piece one gets a better sense of Meacham's views about abuse of power and about how he applies the lessons of history.
While most historians would view examples of previous president's abuses of power as major mistakes on a presidents record, Meacham views these abuses of power as nothing more than precedents to be exploited by future presidents to justify committing similiar abuses of power in the future. This twisted view of history would certainly explain both his stunning statement in the Newsweek column and his equally stunning statements from his Meet the Press appearance where he cites the "great sins" of "great war presidents" as an excuse to defend the illegal torture authorized by George W. Bush.
The "Incomplete" Video
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Dear Andy,Today the Post reported on the results from it's most recent Washington Post/ABC poll. In that poll 51% of respondents supported investigations for torture, 47% did not and 2% had no opinion. When you looked at the internals of the poll it showed that 23% of the respondents self identified as liberal, 39% as moderate and 35% as conservative. In other words, even if every liberal polled said that they wanted investigations (23%) that meant there were still 26% of the respondents who wanted investigations who were not liberal. In fact there were more non-liberals who wanted investigations than there were liberals who wanted investigations yet the Post consistently frames this issue as a left vs. right issue.Tonight I logged onto the Post's site and saw this on the home page:OPINIONSThe Torture DebateScheuer: The Bin Laden ScenarioDanner: Who's to Blame?Gerson: Memos UnderstandableBroder: No to ProsecutionsOf the four opinion pieces listed only 1 of them advocates for accountability. This is why the Post is losing it's readers. We see a newspaper determined to push one point of view and to marginalize all others.I've seen all kinds of pieces written on line by rank and file conservatives against torture where they even call the Republicans who support torture, "Rubber hose Republicans". This is not just a left vs. right issue but if you read only the Post you would never know that.This truly is a right vs. wrong issue and unfortunately the Post has chosen to push the view that there should be no accountability for torture over and over and over. I keep trying to defend the Post but even I find that harder and harder to do these days. I keep finding myself having to write pieces on my blog where I'm critical of what is in the Post. Have they lost their minds? Do they not want readers?I don't expect a response from you but I felt I needed to alert you to this information and hopefully you can pass it along to someone at the Post who might still care about the readers and this newspaper.
If you read today's Washington Post article about their most recent poll results you might come to the conclusion that on the question of whether to investigate torture that the public is evenly divided and that this is just a partisan issue. In other words it's all about Republicans vs. Democrats or liberals vs. everyone else.
Americans also split about evenly on whether the new administration should investigate whether the kind of treatment meted out to terrorism suspects under the Bush administration broke laws, with 51 percent in favor of such inquiries and 47 percent in opposition. About seven in 10 Democrats support such action; a similar proportion of Republicans opposes it. As a candidate, Obama said: "I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems to solve."
31. Do you think the Obama administration should or should not investigate whether any laws were broken in the way terrorism suspects were treated under the Bush administration?Should: 51% Should not: 47% No opinion 2%
Questions 32-33 held for future release. (are these the breakdowns?)
908a. Would you say your views on most political matters are liberal, moderate, or conservative?
There is a warning sign for the GOP in the new poll: 21 percent of those surveyed said they identify as Republicans, the fewest to do so in a Post-ABC poll in more than 25 years. Last fall, Democrats outnumbered Republicans at the polls by the biggest margin in network exit polls going back to the 1982 midterms.
Posts
All Comments
