NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll: Torture

Photo: Crowd to meet Teddy Roosevelt at Chicago 1912

Two days ago the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll was released.  The respondents in this poll self identified themselves as: 24% very liberal or somewhat liberal, 35%  moderate, 35% very conservative or somewhat conservative  and 6% were not sure. 

In other words 76% of respondents were not liberal "score-settlers."

This poll asked a few more detailed questions about torture than usual and actually used the word "torture" on a couple of questions. The poll's respondents  agreed that we tortured (53% to 30%). They also indicated (46% to 44%) that "harsh interrogation techniques helped the U.S. by extracting valuable information to stop terrorism."  They were not, however, asked the followup to that question about whether they thought we should continue to use torture. 

On the investigation question the poll only asked about criminal investigations. It did not ask about an independent panel which means that the number of people wanting "investigations" may in fact be just as high as other polls that showed more people in favor of investigations than not. For instance on a USA/Gallup poll in February, 62% of respondents wanted some type of investigations - 38% wanted criminal investigations and 24% wanted an independent panel. This NBC/Wallstreet journal does not give those who may favor an independent panel over criminal investigations the option to choose that method.

36c. Do you think that there should be a criminal investigation about whether torture was committed during the time of the Bush administration or not?

Because the poll didn't ask about "investigations" the WSJ was able to manipulate the discussion about investigations by making this accurate yet also misleading statement in their news story about their poll:

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.

I find the last question in this poll  particularly interesting:

36d. Suppose that there is a criminal investigation, please tell me whether the following people should be or should not be included in any criminal investigation about whether torture was committed during these interrogations?

WHO  SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Bush administration lawyers who wrote memos 

53% should - 40% should not -  7% not sure

The Intelligence Agencies who directed the interrogations

53% should - 42% should not - 5% not sure

Dick Cheney

49% should - 44% should not - 7% not sure

George W. Bush

48% should - 44% should not - 5% not sure

The people who conducted the interrogations

43% should - 52% should not - 5% not sure

That's right, if there were  a "criminal" investigation more respondents favored holding our top officials accountable including Dick Cheney and George Bush. The only people they don't want held accountable are the people who conducted the interrogations. While the number of people wanting to have Bush included in a criminal investigation is within the margin of error, the number of people who want Cheney included is not. While these respondents weren't asked about other officials such as Rumsfeld, Rice, etc.  I can't imagine that they would exclude these other officials if they included Bush and Cheney.

So for those of us who want these people held legally accountable we know that most people recognize that we tortured so we don't have to convince them of this fact. What we need to address is the distortion in the media that torture works (Kiriakou example) and the almost unanimous agreement among our beltway media personalities that we shouldn't have criminal investigations/prosecutions because it will tear the country apart, etc. We need to start pressing them on why they think following the rule of law will tear our country apart so that we can reveal that this is a false argument. 

In addition,  based upon my previous post about the NYT poll  we need to focus our efforts on the TV personalities who are doing this because most people still get their news from the TV.

New York Times/CBS News Poll: Torture

Photo: Crowd at Union Square between 1910 - 1915

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.

Where do you usually get most of your news about what's going on in the world today - from the newspapers, or radio, or television, or the internet, or someplace else?

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.

Meet the Press: The "Missing" Goodwin/Meacham Segment

Photo: Two men with a female spirit by National Media Museum taken around 1920

I discovered a very curious thing on the video page of the MSNBC  website. 

I went to the MSNBC website because I wanted to watch the Doris Kerns Goodwin/Jon Meacham segment from Sunday's Meet the Press show to review some things that were said in that segment. 

There were 3 videos on the website that included  Goodwin & Meacham in the video. The first video I looked at was some type of after the show, extra online video that I didn't need. The second video was of the actual Goodwin/Meacham segment that I wanted, however, it curiously ended before Goodwin gave her views about the torture issue (the very part I wanted to see).  I then checked the third video which, fortunately for me, contained the entire Meet the Press episode, including the missing footage that I wanted to see.

Even though I finally found what I wanted I still thought it was really odd that they would have the specific Goodwin/Meacham segment on video but not the entire segment. Why would they go to the trouble to make a video of the Goodwin/Meacham segment and then leave out the end of the segment?  

Below is a snippet from the transcript where you will see what played just before the video ended and then what was missing from the video. I think it's very interesting.

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

Full Meet the Press Video

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Stop Scapegoating?

Poster for a side-show at the Vermont State Fair, Rutland - September 1941

In todays Washington Post David Broder takes his protect the establishment at all cost mindset to a new low, even for David Broder. Listed below is the comment I left on the Post's website about his poorly reasoned, Stop Scapegoating, column. My comment by no means addresses all of the crazy things said by Mr. Broder and I welcome others to post their observations.

Boy, David Broder has really outdone himself on this one, and not in a good way. This is as shocking an opinion piece as I've seen on this issue.

We can’t prosecute lawbreakers if some people calling for prosecutions don’t have “pure” motives? What the heck does that have to do with evidence that crimes were committed? When have we ever considered the motives of anyone, other than the criminals themselves when deciding whether to prosecute? 

Mr. Broder also wrongly believes that politics and not evidence should determine whether to prosecute or not prosecute when he states that Obama and not AG Holder and the DOJ should make this determination. That is un-American. Our system of government does not support political interference in prosecutions, as any school child knows.

Mr. Broder also tells us that the memos on torture were a deliberate policy decision made in all the “proper” places by “proper” officials but he doesn’t mention that what these “proper” officials decided in these “proper” places was to “improperly” develop a policy of breaking the law. That’s not a “proper” policy, that’s criminal behavior. This is not about criminalizing policy differences it’s about pointing out that the policy itself was criminal. 

To use Broder's flawed logic, if these "proper" people in "proper" places determined they would have a policy to murder every first born child in this country that would be a legitimate policy that should not be prosecuted. What sheer nonsense.

David Broder should be ashamed of himself for writing such drivel.

More Pathetic, Media Excuses For Not Prosecuting Torture

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

This video shows yet more pathetic, faux discussions about torture among our media personalities where they provide excuse after excuse for why we shouldn't prosecute. They decide in advance they don't want prosecutions and then work backward to provide excuses for why they are right. Amazing.  

They also bemoan that this issue is turning into a "political" fight when it is they themselves who have framed this issue as a political one by once again characterizing it as coming from people on the "left". 

There are many mind numbing comments made in this "discussion" but these two in particular stood out for me.

Pat Buchanan: ...we know what happened to these people, we know who did it, we know who authorized it, we know the deciders decided -

people on the other side, I would say on the left are coming to this saying look this is Nuremberg, we have crimes against humanity here, they've already decided in their hearts this is evil, wicked and wrong and when you have those things the people that made the decisions have to be prosecuted because that's the right thing to do. In other words they come to it with conclusions already and this is what you're running into on the other side.

So Pat Buchanan tells us that "we know what happened", "we know who did it", "we know who authorized it" and "we know the deciders decided" yet he thinks people who advocate for prosecutions for what was done (people on the "left") are somehow unreasonable for coming to the same conclusions that Pat did. We know what happened, who did it, and who authorized it just like Pat. The only difference between our two positions is that Pat won't admit that the evidence shows that we used torture. Pat and others like him can't admit that what we did was torture because to do so means that he'd have to then admit that the Bush administration authorized crimes and if they authorized crimes they need to be prosecuted for them.  

But Joe Scarborough figures out how to eliminate that problem by saying:  

Scarborough: What we need to figure out is, in this new world. what is torture?

Yup, ole Joe figures the only way out of coming to the logical conclusion to prosecute for torture is to try to change the definition of torture just like the Bush administration did in the first place when they wanted to manufacture faux legal cover to in order to torture. 

Yeah, Joe, it's all about the definition, just like when Clinton wanted to define the meaning of what the word is, is. Right.

Clark & Taguba - A Media Tale of Two Generals

As we all know everyone in the media seems to have an opinion about General Wes Clark's remarks about McCain when Clark appeared on Face the Nation this past Sunday. 

"I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark told Bob Schieffer.

We've had multiple stories, blog posts and chats in the major newspapers and the cable folks can't seem to get enough of the story. The pundits are all drooling over the prospect of having another crack at opining about Clark's comments - McCain's response - Obama's reponse - McCain's response to Obama's response, yada, yada, yada. Why even Howie Kurtz, the supposed media critic for the Washington Post, got into the act when he wrote his own column about Clark. 

The majority of the media discussion seems to imply that Clark was at fault. According to some of the narratives, it was even implied that Clark was somehow guilty of dissing the suffering that McCain experienced as a POW even though Clark praised McCain's service and called him a hero for the torture he endured as a POW. Now I have an opinion on the Clark comments but for the purpose of this diary it's irrelevant because this diary is about a media tale of two generals.

Unlike General Clark, the second general in our tale got very little coverage in the media for his comments. Maj. General Anthony Taguba didn't make his comments on a talkshow. He didn't even say them out loud. He wrote a preface to a report by Physicians for Human Rights called Broken Laws, Broken Lives. Included in that preface were these words by General Taguba:

This report tells the largely untold human story of what happened to detainees in our custody when the Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture. This story is not only written in words: It is scrawled for the rest of these individuals’ lives on their bodies and minds. Our national honor is stained by the indignity and inhumane treatment these men received from their captors.

He also used words like wanton cruelty, willful infliction of harm and finally he said this:

...there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.

The media isn't quite as taken with Gen. Taguba as they are with Gen. Clark. The pundits aren't lined up to opine on Taguba's remarks and Howie Kurtz didn't write about the media's coverage or even their lack of coverage. In fact, some of you might not have even heard about what General Taguba said because it disappeared pretty quickly from the media, if it was covered at all (there were a few notable exceptions). I did a quick check on the Washington Post website and they only had four entries for "Taguba" show up while using their search tool. Three of the four pieces that talked about General Taguba appeared in Dan Froomkin's blog. Mr. Froomkin even had one blog entry with the appropriate headline: 

General Accuses WH of War Crimes

Now I may not be a journalist but even I know that it's not every day that you have a former Maj. General in the Bush administration, who actually conducted the first Abu Ghraib investigation, come forward and accuse the WH of war crimes. And you'd think that for such an unprecedented story like this that contained such a serious charge that it would be a front page story for sure. In fact you'd probably think that such a story would even include side stories to go along with the main story. But, if you thought any of that would happen you'd be wrong, at least if you were reading the Washington Post. The Post had no front page story about General Taguba and his charge of war crimes. They didn't have an A2, A3, A4, A5 or even an A6 story.  

The fourth Washington Post Taguba reference that turned up in my search was for a story by Joby Warrick. The Warrick story appeared on page A7 of the Post but the title on the story didn't mention General Taguba. It didn't even mention war crimes like the Froomkin blog title accurately described. In fact, if you were looking for the Taguba story on June 19, 2008, as I was that day, you might have missed it. The Warrick piece, which was the only non-blog piece about Taguba that I could find in the Post (if someone knows of another please let us know), was called:  

Exams Back Up Reports of Detainee Abuse, Group Says

Not exactly a sizzling headline for such a dramatic story, is it? Like the bland headline above, the actual Warrick story never mentioned the extraordinary charge of war crimes made by Taguba. The closest Warrick ever got to mentioning war crimes was when he said this:

In a statement accompanying the report, retired Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who led the Army's first official investigation on Abu Ghraib, said the new evidence suggested a "systematic regime of torture" inside U.S.-run detention camps.

Now it's pretty clear from reading General Taguba's actual words that he did more than just suggest torture, he said there was no doubt. But you wouldn't know that from reading the Warrick story (In fairness it should be noted that while I reference the Post in this diary they were by no means the only media outlet to downplay this explosive story).  

Most of us don't really need any more examples to know how far our media has strayed from it's traditional role of informing the public and acting as the public's watchdog because we've already seen far too many examples of that fact. But for me, A Media Tale of Two Generals is about a subject far too important for me to let it go without comment.

So while Gen. Clark, is getting unwarranted coverage from the media for comments that will probably be forgotten long before the election, the same media is dissing the importance of Gen. Taguba's comments, by downplaying or not even covering his accusation that the Bush administration committed war crimes when they systematically tortured their prisoners. Taguba's comments are not just some campaign banter but serious charges against the Bush administration that deserve far more coverage than they've been given so far. The next time you are tempted to post a comment on a MSM website about General Clark's remarks about McCain, I hope you will remember A Media Tale of Two Generals and tell the media that they are covering the wrong general. You can then explain to them that it's General Taguba and not General Clark who made the kind of important, history making comments that deserve the scrutiny of the press.

This was originally published on Daily Kos 7/3/08

Technorati Profile