Checking Polls on Czechs and Poles or How NPR Makes Stuff Up

A reader in the most recent open thread noted that, in covering the Obama administration's scrapping of the so-called missile shield, NPR claimed that popular support for the US missile program was "mixed." The reader asked, "Is it 'mixed'?"

It's a good question. I spent a little time searching for polling data on how Czechs and Poles reacted to the US plans to install missile defense in their countries. The remarkable thing was that most polls showed opposition to the US plans outweighed support in both Poland and the Czech Republic. Opposition among Czechs has been far stronger than in Poland and there was some increase in Polish popular support during the Russia-Georgia conflict in the summer of 2008.

The best analysis of polling data can be found here at Monkey Cage, with the added benefit being that the author, Joshua Tucker, includes links to the various polls. Robert Dreyfuss of the Nation did an admirable summary of Eastern European public opinion toward US missile plans back in the spring of 2009.

So given the documented public opposition [somewhat "mixed" in Poland, and adamant in the Czech Republic] to US desires to expand its militarism into those countries - how does NPR present this?

On Friday's ME feature that a blog reader commented on Eric Westervelt claims that "for some there was a sense of betrayal. The Poles had steadfastly supported George W. Bush's policies." Of course by "the Poles" he means the rightwing Polish government. After letting two apologists for the missile "shield" weigh in, Westervelt does note that "Key political elites in Poland and the Czech Republic supported the original missile plan, but public opinion in both countries was always much more divided." Of course no numbers or facts are allowed to intrude in this fuzzy statement.

On Saturday's ATC Guy Raz talks to the Atlantic's James Fallows. Their discussion of missile defense features this interchange:

Raz: "The U.S. has scrapped plans to install a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, a program...that the Poles and the Czechs wanted."

Mr. Fallows: "Opinion in the Czech Republic seems to be divided, whereas the Poles are more enthusiastic."

So the muddled "much more divided" of Westervelt has been discarded for the completely dishonest assessment from Raz that the US missile defense was something "that the Poles and Czechs wanted" - while Fallows' uses the lazy and dishonest description of "seems to be divided" to ignore overhelming Czech opposition, while defying published data to claim that the less overwhelming popular Polish opposition is actually enthusiasm(!). Hmmm, maybe ignorance is strength after all.

Set This One Aside for the Future

On the hourly news summary this morning Paul Brown described the laudable White House plans to scrap a missile defense boondoggle in Eastern Europe as follows:

"The decision would reflect a US determination that Iran's long-range missile program has not progressed as rapidly as previously estimated, reducing the threat to the US and Europe."

No mention, of course, that Iran's missile program has NEVER been a threat to the US or Europe - (unless the US or a European country is planning a war of aggression against Iran). Instead the threat is treated as real and factual - just reduced, so it can be pulled off the shelf later.

Click the "missile defense" tag below to see how doggedly NPR has been about hawking the Iranian "threat" all along.

Bipartisan Warheads

Back when it was the Bushcorp crazies running the show it was no surprise for Bush to say utterly absurd and stupid things like claiming that Iran was a threat to launch WWIII and the only thing to stop it would be a "missile shield" based in Eastern Europe. What was disturbing was that NPR (see May 2007 and July 2008) and much of the rest of the media treated this nonsense as reasonable and necessary.

Ah, but times have changed, and we now have a new President, Democrat Barack Obama, pushing the same missile shield lies, and - guess what? - NPR is along for the ride. Don (my moral compass points toward power) Gonyea has been following Obama around and had this to say on Sunday ATC:

"Now in the speech the President segued from the threat posed by North Korea into the topic of Iran - specifically, the proposed US missile shield that would protect Eastern and Central Europe from a potential attack should Iran develop a nuclear weapon."

"...it would be a shield against a potential nuclear missile attack from Iran."

Looks like President Obama's not the only one who can slyly segue from one story and on into a paranoid, hypothetical (but very profitable) militarist fantasy.

Defending Missile Defense

The US isn't the only one selling missile defense. Arch foe of Iran, Peter Kenyon, teams up this morning with Sec. of War Robert Gates and Centcom Commander David Petraeus to frighten us about the Iranian threat - again. Starting the sales pitch is Linda Wertheimer:

"US officials also want the UAE to purchase another missile defense system for more than twice that amount. As NPR's Peter Kenyon reports, they're hoping to deter the potential threat from Iran."

Kenyon doesn't disappoint:

"Gates made sure to remind delegates of the threat from Iran. [reluctant servant Gates] 'Now when it comes to Iran's missile programs...it is clear that this year Iran has tested...can hit any country in the Middle East...has continued its pursuit of a nuclear program...geared toward developing nuclear weapons...'"

"General David Petraeus, head of the Central Command, followed up with a five point plan for enhancing security in the region - near the top of the list missile defense. [Petraeus] '...expand existing bilateral air and missile defense initiatives...multilateral cooperation in this defensive area...active missile defense measures underway are vital elements of regional deterrence...'"

"US officials have been making the case for a Persian Gulf missile defense system for several years now. As gulf economies boomed in recent years...the argument took on a sharper edge: invest in protection against Iranian missiles or risk losing the confidence of overseas investors."

You have to admire the skill with which NPR seamlessly combines US military (and corporate weaponsmakers') propaganda into this report. Never is the assertion that Iran is a threat called into question (and conveniently, no mention is made of why the UAE would be a target of Iranian missiles).

Kenyon does mention that the effectiveness of anti-missile technology has a "mixed record at best" and that missile defense could spark a new arms race, but he closes his report with this Orwellian twist:

"Analysts say it's not clear when missile defense technology will be a truly effective deterrent...."

Missile defense [even if it is technically successful] is the opposite of a deterrent. At best it can be seen as defensive, and practically, it is likely to encourage offensive adventurism on the part of those who possess it.

Condi's Mouth

Two extremely important events involving the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice - her trip to Russia to push for US military expansion into Poland and the Czech Republic and her maneuvers in Jerusalem with Abbas and Olmert to supposedly push for "peace" between Israel and the Palestinians. Guess what expert we get from NPR to provide background and analysis? The dutiful Michele Kelemen who has repeatedly shown herself to be a mouthpiece for Rice (e.g. January 2007 and July 2006). Kelemen has NO expertise on the Middle East and offers no significant information on why Rice is a completely discredited agent for such efforts. Listening to Kelemen, you'd never know that the consistent thrust of the Bush administration has been to undermine any and all efforts at finding a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

On the bogus "need" for missile defense in Eastern Europe and Russia's understandable suspicions of this US policy, we get nothing from Kelemen. Would have been a good opportunity to interview to some experts who dissent from the pro-administration line - Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Stephen Cohen, or Anatol Lieven. Anything with substance, instead of the empty parroting of Kelemen.