Some Questions Not Asked

A Washington Post-ABC News Poll conducted June 18-22 may be as interesting for the questions it didn't ask as for those it did.

Asked: 56% would support military action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Not Asked: How many would support military action to prevent the United States from developing "mini"-nukes, or restarting production of plutonium warhead triggers? Or for "disarming" the United States entirely?

Asked: 67% approve of the way The Superbrain is "dealing with" Iraq. Not Asked: How many approve of the wholesale selling off of Iraq, primarily to U.S.-based business interests, many with close ties to members of the Bush Administration? How many approve of the occupiers' indifference to the plight of those it has "liberated" -- anarchy, economic deprivation, inadequate to non-existent services, scarce supplies, threat of epidemics of disease, & cetera? How many approve of the killing and detention of hundreds of unarmed Iraqis? How many approve of the occupation authorities setting up camp in Saddam's air-conditioned palaces, while the population suffers in the sweltering Iraqi heat? How many approve of the virtual outlawing of dissent in "liberated" Iraq?

Asked: 64% say the benefits of the war outweigh its costs. Not Asked: How many think that Americans have a right to determine whether the cost to Iraqis are outweighed by the benefits? How many think that Iraqis by and large suppose that the benefits of the war outweigh its costs? How many are fully aware of the costs (to Americans) of the war?

Asked: 25% think Iraq used chemical or biological weapons during the war (while an additional 15% aren't sure). Not Asked: How many people think the United States used nuclear weapons (in the form of "depleted" and/or non-"depleted" uranium munitions) in the war? How many think that radiation levels in Iraq and Afghanistan are at "astonishing" levels? How many think the United States used an experimental weapon to fry Iraqi electrical grids during the war -- essentially a type of biological warfare, as it stymies water treatment facilities? (Maybe it didn't. But one surely must wonder why electricity is still dangerously sporadic throughout Baghdad.) How many think the occupiers allowed an Iraqi nuclear plant to be looted while they were busy protecting the oil Ministry -- so that there are now "frightening levels" of radioactivity in nearby villages? How many think Iraqis are still being blown up by American cluster bombs?

Asked: More than 60% think the war would be justified even if no WMD are found in Iraq. Not Asked: How many think an illegal, unprovoked, unilateral "disarmament" of the United States by some outside force would be justified? How many even if the Americans' "liberator" couldn't find any WMD after?

Asked: Fewer Democrats and Independents consider U.S. troop losses "acceptable", while the number of Republicans considering U.S. troop losses "acceptable" is unchanged from a previous poll. Not Asked: How many consider the number of Iraqi conscript and civilian losses -- well into the thousands, not of course including hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions, who will contract cancer from the war's radioactive residue -- "acceptable"? How would Democrats' and Republicans' responses change if a Democrat were in office?

What You Can Do: Contact the Post's Ombudsman, requesting a more appropriate line of questioning for the next survey. It won't happen if we don't ask!

Posted by Eddie Tews at June 26, 2003 10:56 AM