Captain's Quarters -

CBS and the New York Times. Now there are two organizations we can trust. Yes? And pigs fly!

CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC; different faces, same behavior... ABC recently released a "covert operation" aimed at Iran; net result "no longer covert"... Where is Fitzgerald on this one?

These so called news outlets are nothing more than propaganda machines for the Democrat Party & Socialist's from around the world. To hell with all of them! Congress as well as President Bush have a popularity rating that is sinking into the abyss by the minute.

No reason to trust our politicians
Fred Thompson is quoted as saying the following on the new proposed Immigration Reform bill under debate:

“Nobody believes them. It goes to the bigger issue of the lack of credibility our government has these days”

The issue of the day is “trust” and “credibility.”

Some are old enough to remember the pack of lies from the 1965 Immigration Bill and make no mistake it was a pack of lies.

Some that are not as old remember the pack of lies from the 1986 Immigration and again make no mistake it was also a pack of lies and failure.

The most recent pack of lies was given to us with the passing of The Secure Fence Act of 2006:

SEC. 2. ACHIEVING OPERATIONAL CONTROL ON THE BORDER.

(a) In General- Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States, to include the following–

(1) systematic surveillance of the international land and maritime borders of the United States through more effective use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and cameras; and

(2) physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful entry by aliens into the United States and facilitate access to the international land and maritime borders by United States Customs and Border Protection, such as additional checkpoints, all weather access roads, and vehicle barriers.

(b) Operational Control Defined- In this section, the term `operational control’ means the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.

© Report- Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the progress made toward achieving and maintaining operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States in accordance with this section.

How was the the Director of Homeland Security going to achieve this?

Its primary purpose is to build 700 miles of new fencing along the United States–Mexico border with the intention of controlling illegal immigration into the United States of America.

Frankly, Ed, I'm surprised you still waste your time reading the NYTimes. And CBS? With Couric as the grand marshall of hard news following in the footsteps of Rather/Mapes? Please.

I ignore anything from them now... good, bad, or indifferent. Pravda has about as much credibility.

"I recommend rejecting this poll..." - Ed

This poll - and any other coming from the MSM is worthless. Frankly Ed, I reject any poll - based on the fact that all polls are minuscule samples, usually well off the actual mark. Oh, sure - there are those 'averages' that sometimes come close - but, the fact remains, they are designed to change minds, herd people toward a predetermined goal mostly benefiting the political left.

That ought to tell people something - make up your own mind based on your own research... rather than being part of a mindless herd mentality and a victim of deceitful propaganda.

I don't know why CBS, NYT, etc. even bother with polls. They make up whatever "facts" they need anyway.

They are total liars.

Maybe I just haven't been paying attention.

But when was it that the NYT started to care about reporting facts?

I agree with RonC. I think most polls are designed to influence opinion via the herd mentality. Most news outlets are well aware that the public feels they have an agenda. These so callled "polls" are a way on indirectly validating that.

I am and always have been against this war, I am a long time democrat, and I dislike Bush. However, I am ambivalent about withholding funding for the war because I am concerned about the troops not having what they need. As long as they are there they should have everything they need to fight the war and to live in whatever degree of comfort that is possible. Why is it so hard to believe that others hold that some opinion. As to the trustworthyness of polls, I agree it can be problematic, but when I talk to the people around me I very seldom speak with anyone who still supports Bush and this war. 28% sounds about right in my experience. Do the other writers here really see more than that degree of support in their friends and family?

I'm glad you're delving into the why and how polls are almost always baloney with a specific political agenda Ed, but let's face it, the MSM polls for the last 4 years have been about one thing: attacking the war in Iraq and portraying it as unwinnable.

The bottom line is these polls are the terrorist's best weapons against us. They know the only way they can win in Iraq is to get the American people to give up on Iraq. The Dems quote these polls religiously because they are fanatical about them. They long figured out that these polls are the weapons they need to force a surrender to Al Qaeda in Iraq.

They are a psi-op. They in fact may BE the psi-op. The problem is the poll numbers don't add up anymore. Americans KNOW we cannot surrender in Iraq. And the number crunching breaks down when the model no longer fits the data.

Pay attention. When we say the MSM is helping the terrorists and the Democrats, this is what we mean.

"69% want the war funded with some form of benchmarks, and 15% want it funded with no strings attached at all."

I'm not surprised. Whatever their feelings about President Bush or the decision to invade Iraq, most Americans don't like to lose.

I would also hazard a guess that most Americans don't care to stab our military in the back a second time in less than 40 years.

And there you go. The headline of the poll SHOULD be "Overwhleming Majority of Americans Support Funding the War in Iraq."

It's only in the last part of the paragraph that we see anything about the reality of the situation: America doesn't like being in Iraq but they understand we must win there.

And this is the reason Clinton, Obama, Dodd, or Edwards will lose in 08.

yes reject the polls, the only one that mattered and has effect is the general elections ... that poll did all the talking. GOP out, Dems in. Iraq the major contributor.

So what are you concerned about here Captain? That Bush is being represented as an approval rating of 28% instead of the 34% that Rasmussen shows? Your argument is basically over percentages, well over 50 percent of Americans want this war ended and can't see a winnable solution ahead. I surely don't want the war to end just because the military runs out of money. Those who would use that as an option to "end the war" are in the vast minority. It does not translate however into Americans wanting this referee of a civil war to continue costing brave American lifes.

Shouldn't it be obvious by now that with slippery worded questions, the value of any polls conducted by anybody is virtually non-existent. Also, I have to laugh when I hear people who are "against the war". So are we all! However, to run from all war and embrace pacifism has not shown itself to be a wise course of action in the history lthat I have studied and taught.

The Democrat Congress's numbers have been the same as or lower than Bush's for some time now in a variety of polls. An interesting state of affairs when you consider that the MSM does little beyond flacking 24/7 for Democrats and smashing Bush and the GOP. Not a very good return on their investment.

I suspect that CBS and the New York Times wanted to ride to the rescue of increasingly beleaguered Democrats. Hence the "creative" polling data which will only continue to chip away at the credibility of these "news" organizations. But as long as CBS and the Times got a poll that showed that Bush's numbers were lower than Congress's, they could write the headlines they craved and keep the spin going a while longer.

With that in mind, allow me to be the first to encourage Monkei to continue his line of thought. Wanting the war to end is not the same as deliberately wanting to lose the war, a fact that Monkei and the Democrat Party may learn the hard way next year. If Monkei had been right, Congress's numbers should have soared to record heights during this fight with Bush. But the reverse has been true.

The Democrat Congress's numbers have been the same as or lower than Bush's for some time now in a variety of polls. An interesting state of affairs when you consider that the MSM does little beyond flacking 24/7 for Democrats and smashing Bush and the GOP. Not a very good return on their investment.

I suspect that CBS and the New York Times wanted to ride to the rescue of increasingly beleaguered Democrats. Hence the "creative" polling data which will only continue to chip away at the credibility of these "news" organizations. But as long as CBS and the Times got a poll that showed that Bush's numbers were lower than Congress's, they could write the headlines they craved and keep the spin going a while longer.

With that in mind, allow me to be the first to encourage Monkei to continue his line of thought. Wanting the war to end is not the same as deliberately wanting to lose the war, a fact that Monkei and the Democrat Party may learn the hard way next year. If Monkei had been right, Congress's numbers should have soared to record heights during this fight with Bush. But the reverse has been true.

The only reason the Dems took over in 2006 is because they lied to their constituents in close seats. The Dems appeared more hawkish that the Republicans. The silly voters are now finding out what has always been common knowledge - The Dems have to lie because their policies are so vile that the average voter won't vote for them if they told the truth.

I've never seen any of these poll questions so I don't know but I suspect they say something like "do you approve of the way the war is being managed" There may be a large chunk of the electorate like me who don't approve of how things are going and would answer "no" to such a question, but believe the problem is we need to be much more aggressive, not that we need to turn tail and run.

A few good quotes:

“Comprehensive” reform supporter John Podhoretz:

What’s astonishing about the bill’s arrival is that the White House knows perfectly well it’s political poison. In 2004 Bush first announced his immigration reform plans, and the response from the Republican base was so violent that he immediately tabled the subject.

Last year an immigration bill surfaced and all hell broke loose again. It was the dominant subject on talk radio for two months, and helped contribute to the lassitude that overcame the GOP base in the months before the election.

So here is Bush, entering a critical period on the most critical issue of his presidency and for the nation - and he is playing salesman for a piece of legislation that divides his own supporters.

That’s bad politics.

Peggy Noonan:

Naturally I hope the new immigration bill fails. It is less a bill than a big dirty ball of mischief, malfeasance and mendacity, with a touch of class malice, and it’s being pushed by a White House that is at once cynical and inept. The bill’s Capitol Hill supporters have a great vain popinjay’s pride in their own higher compassion. They are inclusive and you’re not, you cur, you gun-totin’ truckdriver’s-hat-wearin’ yahoo. It’s all so complex, and you’d understand this if you weren’t sort of dumb.

-- PoliPundit

About sums it up... Bush continues to stick his own base in the back; Congress continues to set new standards for creating law that harms Americans rather than helps Americans.

Net results; 70% of Americans want to line these politicians up on the edge of a cliff, and shove every one of them off.

I don't think people trust the polling data. Did Bush find himself in trouble though? I think he causes his own problems. And, there's not test for that, that would help anyone understand why Iraq "floundered."

It floundered when Paul Bremer went in. And, spent a year.

Yes, Bush says "mistakes were made." But it doesn't cover the range of mistakes.

Let alone how the Saud's have funded TERROR. Because things that explode costs money.

Where we failed? We didn't put in place a peace worth much. Were we short manpower? Well? We had more than 200,000 troops on the ground in Japan. And, it seems you need a very strong general. Not Tommy Franks who couldn't wait to leave the theater.

So, yes. You add it all up, and you see that Bush is in more trouble than he'd have been in, IF he had used the bully pulpit of the White House, well.

While I've really learned another lesson. From Olmert. Where he gets dragged down by elite committees. But he has a wonderful way of responding to it. It's as if it's not happening! He survives. And, it's harder, there. Because in Israel governments change hands about every two years.

I'm also pretty sure the donks ONLY HAVE THEIR TWO-PERCENT! It's not the mood of the People at all! Let alone how the media is not really representative of the country at large.

By the way, I don't think Americans isolate information. I think they look at the whole picture. Where Lebanon has erupted. Where gazoo is a mess. And, where the Saud's tried to become owners of real estate that was not theirs.

Anyway, Americans will follow a LEADER. Bush doesn't qualify. But someone else will come forward, I think. And, in that reagard I think a lot of Americans are waiting. Just to see it. Iraq's not Vietnam.

The prizes won't go to the elites.

"But when was it that the NYT started to care about reporting facts?"

I think it was 1946, when they reported we were losing the war in Europe...

"I am and always have been against this war, I am a long time democrat, and I dislike Bush. However, I am ambivalent about withholding funding for the war because I am concerned about the troops not having what they need. As long as they are there they should have everything they need to fight the war and to live in whatever degree of comfort that is possible. Why is it so hard to believe that others hold that some opinion. As to the trustworthyness of polls, I agree it can be problematic, but when I talk to the people around me I very seldom speak with anyone who still supports Bush and this war. 28% sounds about right in my experience. Do the other writers here really see more than that degree of support in their friends and family?"

carol H, I found it amazing of your jumps in logic. If you believe you want to protect the soldiers and you are against the war and you act on this belief, you will have supported the funding with withdrawl strings or defunding. But you folded in front of Bush.

You would have raised your hands and said, "That's it! We don't want the troops in Iraq for any one more single day!" But your side voted in no-strings funding. I'm sorry but you still have to convince me of how your side reached this contradictions. And don't tell me of the nonsense of "wait until our side is in the White House in 18 months" because if you honestly believe this situation is hopeless and you truly have concern for the troops you wouldn't want the situation to extend for one more single day.

So I think your stance is, quite amazingly, logically inconsistent. And no, being a supporter of the war myself does not influence in my line of thinking above.