Radosh.net

So I was going to write a simple little item about divergent polls. The New York Times/CBS poll says Americans oppose pre-emptive strikes. The Wall St. Journal/NBC poll says America favors pre-emptive strikes. Media moment gold.

Here's how the Times paraphrased its own findings, "But a majority remains opposed to a policy of pre-emptive attack like the one President Bush invoked in invading Iraq." The sidebar to the story shows what you'd think were the actual poll questions and results: "After the war in Iraq, do you think the United States should not attack another country unless the U.S. is attacked first, or should the U.S. be able to attack any country it thinks might attack the U.S.?" Should not attack: 51%, Should attack: 38%, No opinion: 11%.

The Journal printed only a graphic showing that when asked "Do you agree with the new military policy of initiating pre-emptive strikes," 63% said agree, 25% said disagree, 12% said unsure.

My gut reaction was that when asked simply about "pre-emptive strikes," as in the WSJ poll, people say sure. But when it is explained exactly what this policy means, as in the Times poll, they're more hesitant. But then a footnote to the Times question caught my eye: "Asked of half the respondents." That's odd, I thought. So I checked the actual poll results.

Turns out that for some reason, half of the respondents were asked this question, worded slightly differently than in the Times print edition, but essentially the same: "Which comes closer to your opinion about what the United States policy should be after the war with Iraq? The United States should not attack another country unless the U.S. is attacked first, OR the U.S. should be able to attack any country it thinks might attack the United States?" The results were as the Times reported them.

But the other respondents were asked the question without the specific qualifier that this refers to post-Iraq: "Which comes closer to your opinion about what the United States policy should be? The United States should not attack another country unless the U.S. is attacked first, OR the U.S. should be able to attack any country it thinks might attack the United States?" This time, the responses were, Should not attack: 40%, Should attack: 47%, Don't know, 13%.

Not quite as enthusiastic as the WSJ poll, but odd that the Times shouldn't mention this, I thought. It seems to undermines their paraphrase: Americans don't oppose a policy of preemption "like the one Bush invoked in invading Iraq" -- that's precisely the one they do support. It's cases UNLIKE Iraq -- those yet to come -- in which Americans oppose preemption.

Then I checked the actual WSJ/NBC poll. Turns out it doesn't just ask about "pre-emptive strikes," but also spells out what they mean. However, it does so in language that's clearly designed -- or at least likely -- to elicit a more enthusiastic response: "Do you agree or disagree with the United States' new policy of initiating military action when there is a threat of hostility?" The difference between "thinks might attack" and "threat of hostility" is subtle but genuine.

And while trolling the poll results, I found two intriguing items that didn't make the print versions at all. When the Times asked, "Do you think Iraq probably does or probably does not have weapons of mass destruction that the United States has yet to find?" 81% said it does, 12% said it does not, and 1% volunteered that in fact such weapons HAD been found.

Sure, it's not so bad if 1% of Americans have their heads up their asses. But that's the people willing to contradict the poll question. The WSJ/NBC poll asked the really important question: "Was the United States successful at finding evidence of weapons of mass destruction?" This time 36% said it was, 11% said they weren't sure. Only a slim majority knew that so far no WMDs have been found.

Don't ask how many people in either poll thinks it matters one way or the other.

1:35 PM