Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
34. Dead wrong
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 09:28 AM
Sep 2014

“Almost two-thirds back attacking militants. Public in more hawkish mood,” blares the Wall Street Journal about a new poll it released this morning. One prominent WSJ writer tweets: “ISIS may have thought video beheadings would reduce Americans’ desire to act; it seems the opposite happened.”

The poll itself does contain some grounds for these conclusions, finding that 61 percent say “military action” against ISIS in Iraq and Syria is “in the national interest.”

But half-baked suggestions that Americans want generic “action” risk being misleading. What actions do Americans actually support? It turns out the WSJ poll also finds that 40 percent say “action” should be “limited to air strikes only” and another 15 percent say we shouldn’t act at all — a total of 55 percent. Meanwhile, all of 34 percent support air strikes and sending in combat troops — perhaps higher than one might expect, but still only one in three Americans.

What’s more, the poll also finds that only 27 percent say the U.S. should become “more active in world affairs.” That’s up from April, but still, it represents barely more than one in four Americans. Meanwhile, 40 percent say we should be less active and another 29 percent say we should maintain our current level of activeness — a total of 69 percent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/09/10/morning-plum-is-media-putting-thumb-on-scale-for-war/?hpid=z2

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Breitbart? Really? 99th_Monkey Sep 2014 #1
Ignore if you were being sarcastic. Can't tell with a lot of the poo flung at Glenn. anti partisan Sep 2014 #2
I guess a guy's got to do, what a guy's got to do. 99th_Monkey Sep 2014 #6
On the topic of him being a "libertarian"? Please. anti partisan Sep 2014 #8
That made me smile 4now Sep 2014 #3
Link is just Glenn's own words pasted from Glenn's own blog which was taken down. (nt) anti partisan Sep 2014 #5
I see the edit. Which point(s) do you disagree with, and why? (nt) anti partisan Sep 2014 #4
Glenn at his Best...Exposing Hypocrisy. Some Snips from "Intercept" Article: KoKo Sep 2014 #26
Pretty good, though I have a few quibbles Chathamization Sep 2014 #32
Who coulda guessed that GG, Pooty Poot & Breitbart would all be on the same page? Tarheel_Dem Sep 2014 #7
Post removed Post removed Sep 2014 #9
Are you calling him a troll 4now Sep 2014 #10
No, I'm calling the post a "troll post" because that is quite clearly the objective of said post anti partisan Sep 2014 #11
What is the difference? 4now Sep 2014 #16
A "troll post" is a post created with the intent of trolling anti partisan Sep 2014 #20
Would posting a Breitbart link on a Dem forum be considered a "troll post"? 4now Sep 2014 #21
Oh God, enough pedantic quibbling. Soon I'll have to call the maturity police on you (nt) anti partisan Sep 2014 #22
I understand that you don't want to answer the question 4now Sep 2014 #24
Yeah, cause its such a tough question. You really stumped me good. anti partisan Sep 2014 #25
Yup...nt SidDithers Sep 2014 #31
It's allowed, if you're a member of a certain clique. Otherwise, it would be zapped pronto. Tarheel_Dem Sep 2014 #12
That's me! But I'm really cute. See below. Tarheel_Dem Sep 2014 #13
Back in the good old days when trolls were trolls and lived happily in troll-land (nt) anti partisan Sep 2014 #14
Still curious why an "anti partisan" likes to hang out on a partisan Democratic website, but alas. Tarheel_Dem Sep 2014 #15
Most of DU are the good Guys RobertEarl Sep 2014 #17
Right back atcha! When's the last time you picked up one of these? Tarheel_Dem Sep 2014 #19
Partisan can mean many different things in American politics anti partisan Sep 2014 #23
Actually Turbineguy Sep 2014 #18
As one of the comments notes, very simplistic analysis driven by ideology instead of facts. stevenleser Sep 2014 #27
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. geek tragedy Sep 2014 #28
So what does Greenwald suggest should be done from his ivory compound in Rio? Blue_Tires Sep 2014 #29
Greenwald is a piece of shit used car salesman...nt SidDithers Sep 2014 #30
hahaha treestar Sep 2014 #33
Dead wrong WilliamPitt Sep 2014 #34
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Greenwald: Americans over...»Reply #34