The press release for Quinnipiac University’s National Poll leads with the findings that “American voters say Iran sanctions aren’t working. … 50 percent say bomb Iran if sanctions don’t work.” But an examination of the polling questions reveals some surprising bias and outright misstatement of facts by the pollsters. Take the following questions:

43. How closely have you been following news about Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons – Would you say you have been following it very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all?

44. Do you consider Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons to be a very serious threat to U.S. national security, a somewhat serious threat, not a very serious threat or not a threat to U.S. national security?

45. How effective do you think the U.S. and its allies policy of economic sanctions against Iran have been in preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, very effective, somewhat effective, not too effective, or not effective at all?

46. Do you think the U.S. should take military action to prevent Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon or not?

47. (If No q46) If the economic sanctions are unable to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program, do you think the U.S. should take military action to prevent Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon or not?

48. If Israel were to attack Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program, would you want the U.S. to, support Israel’s military action, oppose Israel’s military action, or would you want the US to stay neutral?

Either Quinnipiac University has information about Iran’s nuclear program that wasn’t available to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), or the entire Iran section of the poll was full of leading questions assuming Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Earlier this month, a senior Obama administration official told the National Journal:

The IAEA does not assert that Iran has resumed a full scale nuclear weapons program nor does it have a program [sic] about how advanced the programs really are.

The IAEA report did flag a number of “serious concerns” about Iran’s nuclear program but came up well short of asserting that Tehran had resumed its halted nuclear weapons program from 2003.

While Quinnipiac University’s findings that “50 percent of U.S. voters support military action if sanctions fail” are disturbing, the pollsters may have seriously misled respondents by suggesting that there is conclusive evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program or that a military attack could be effective in destroying Iran’s alleged weapons program. Indeed, such assertions, and the resulting polling statistics, serve to tilt public opinion toward preemptive military action when intelligence reports paint a far more complex picture of Iran’s nuclear program and the extremely risky outcomes of an Israeli and/or U.S. airstrike.

When reached for comment, Douglas Schwartz, director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, declined to answer questions about the poll’s questions or methodology. He told ThinkProgress, “The Quinnipiac University Polling Institute stands by its questions and by its results.”

Our guest bloggers are Sarah Margon, associate director for Sustainable Security at the Center for American Progress, and Martin Wolberg-Stok, sustainable security intern at CAP.

Earlier this week, a bipartisan group of Middle East experts and leading human rights organizations sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing their concerns about the ongoing political tensions in Bahrain. The letter urged the U.S. to hold the Bahraini government to its commitments for reform and to encourage constructive participation from the opposition

The impetus for this letter was the much-anticipated report of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) report, released earlier today. The report sought to address the violent events that occurred last February, when hundreds of thousands Bahrainis demonstrated peacefully in support of greater political freedom. Appointed by the King of Bahrain, the Commission was headed by an Egyptian-American professor and made up of independent, internationally recognized scholars and jurists. Despite this diverse group, the Commission still had an uphill battle given the surrounding environment of paranoia and mistrust to conduct its investigations.

In a move welcomed by many Bahrain watchers, the commission, found that the government’s security forces used “unnecessary and excessive force” and that many detainees were subjected to torture. The report effectively confirms the accusations from national and international human rights groups that the government of Bahrain was guilty of systematic human rights violations.

The response from the Bahraini government is notable, with a spokesman commenting that, “The government welcomes the findings of the Independent Commission, and acknowledges its criticisms.” However, many of the BICI recommendations center around the need for institutional change in Bahrain’s legal framework — a complex and potentially lengthy process. Indeed, as the report notes, the “systematic pattern of behavior…indicates that this [use of excessive force] is how these security forces were trained and were expected to behave.” Specific, concrete recommendations for changing these structural problems — and a willingness to implement them — are vital for any real progress to occur.

Given the unrest throughout the broader Middle East, the Commission’s report has gained international significance, including for many law and policymakers in Washington, who have walked a careful line in dealing with the Bahraini government over the last few months. As ThinkProgress reported last September, the administration came under pressure from rights groups for approving a $53 million arms package to Bahrain, seemingly ignoring the crackdown on protesters. Bahrain has been a critical ally of the United States in the Middle East and the island serves as the headquarters for the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and the Fifth Fleet.
Read more

During last night’s GOP national security debate, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) quoted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying that he would use a nuclear weapon to destroy both the U.S. and Israel. Neither Ahmadinejad, nor any other Iranian official, has said any such thing but this isn’t the first time Bachmann attributed the same, inaccurate, statement to Ahmadinejad.

Here’s what she said last night:

BACHMANN: Why is that we’re talking about Israel having to make a strike against Iran? It’s because Iran has announced they plan to strike Israel. They’ve stated as recently as August, just before President Ahmadinejad came to the U.N. General Assembly. He stated they wanted to eradicate Israel from the face of the Earth. He has said that if he has a nuclear weapon, he will use it to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. He will use it against the United States of America. This isn’t just an idle threat, this is a reality.

Watch it:

Bachmann’s assertion is patently false. Iran has consistently denied that it has a nuclear weapon or is seeking to build one. Just three weeks ago, ABC’s Christiane Amanpour called Bachmann out on her misstating of the same quote, saying:

AMANPOUR: Congresswoman, of course the United States is concerned about the nuclear program. Iran denies that it has one, so it hasn’t threatened to use them.

Watch it:

A simple misunderstanding of the facts, albeit a misunderstanding with potentially serious consequences, might be excused. But Bachmann’s repeated misrepresentation of Iranian positions, even after being corrected, suggests a willful strategy of attributing inaccurate and incendiary quotes to Ahmadinejad.

After the conclusion of Tuesday night’s GOP national security and foreign policy debate, CNN Democratic political analyst Donna Brazile remarked that the debate seemed like a bad flashback:

This was like retro debate. I felt like we were going back into the past. The neocons — it was like the last hurrah, celebration of the past. Not looking at the current threats and the way the president has handled them and perhaps how we handle future threats to this country.

Brazile is right: Despite the rise of the Tea Party, with its disdain for government, and libertarian non-interventionist Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-TX) primacy in important Republican races, the GOP seems inextricably wedded to the foreign policy ethos that defined the first George W. Bush term.

Last night’s debate was hosted by two think tanks with close links to the personnel and ideology of the Bush Administration. Most of the “audience questions” came from scholars from the organizations, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Heritage Foundation. The latter, though not as renown for militaristic neoconservatism as the former, nonetheless advocates many similar positions, such as robust defense spending levels, continuing large-scale military commitments in the Middle East and Central Asia, hawkishness on Iran and unflinching support for Israeli government policies.

The Bush foreign policy era connections were on full display last night, despite the fact that Bush himself was barely mentioned. The former president’s unpopularity in the waning days of his administration may be the reason he’s barely been mentioned. In the ten previous debates, Bush one came up only 19 times, most of them critical mentions, according to an analysis by Michael Cohen. Last night, Bush got two shout-outs, both of them from “audience questions” from top former Bush administration officials.

Those officials, and the think tankers that cheered on the administration, featured prominently in the debate. Here’s a quick run-down of some of the most controversial ones and what they asked about:

DAVID ADDINGTON: The Heritage staffer, former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney and co-author of the infamous “torture memos,” asked about Syria and what the candidates thought constituted U.S. interests, and “what would you do to protect them.”

DANIELLE PLETKA: The vice president of foreign policy and defense studies at AEI and wife of Romney campaign staffer Stephen Rademaker, Pletka held to her longstanding hawkishness on Iran, positing that “Iran is probably less than a year away from getting a nuclear weapon” and wondering if sanctions could bring an end to Iran’s nuclear program.

EDWIN MEESE III: The former Reagan administration Attorney General and Heritage fellow asked, “Shouldn’t we have a long range extension of the investigative powers contained in [the Patriot Act]?”

MARC THIESSEN: A speechwriter for the Bush White House and Donald Rumsfeld‘s Defense Department who advocates relentlessly for permissive interrogation guidelines — ie. torture — the AEI fellow asked what national security issue the candidates thought was going unmentioned but that loomed on the horizon.

PAUL WOLFOWITZ: The AEI scholar and, at the Bush Pentagon, a key architect of the Iraq war, asked if the foreign development aid levels of the Bush administration were possible to attain in the age of austerity.

FRED KAGAN: The AEI scholar and Iraq war dead-ender asked: “Do you think that an expanded drone campaign in Pakistan would be sufficient to defeat al-Qaeda and to secure our interests in Pakistan?”

The Washington Post ThinkTanked blog wondered yesterday if two think-tanks which are closely affiliated with some of the candidates and their hawkish advisers can host an unbiased debate. But journalist Max Blumenthal asked if the bigger issue wasn’t whether a “news network… has handed control over its campaign coverage” to ideological neoconservatives. It seems, though, from watching the debate, that the GOP also acquiesces to a strong neoconservative influence over its foreign policies. If the party retakes the presidency, which controls foreign affairs, the U.S. seems likely to return to the aggressive policies of the first Bush term.

Last night during the GOP presidential national security debate, debate moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), who is on the House Intelligence Committee, if she agrees with Gov. Rick Perry’s that Pakistan should no longer receive American aid. “I would continue that aid,” the Minnesota congresswoman said, but in setting up her answer, she revealed that terrorists have attempted to compromise Pakistan’s nuclear sites. She repeated the claim this morning on Fox News, citing a story in the Atlantic, and said that the incident means that nuclear weapons can make their way “into the hands of terrorists and make their way to the United States.” Watch it:

CNN fact checks Bachmann’s claim. While their report doesn’t confirm whether the sites were nuclear facilities, CNN says her assertion is “misleading” because the attacks “do not appear to have been attempts to seize the country’s nuclear weapons.”

While the Atlantic reported recently that the six facilities Bachmann is presumably referring to are “widely believed to be associated with Pakistan’s nuclear program,” the National Journal’s Yochi Dreazen notes: “U.S. intelligence and military officials believe that Pakistan has 15 nuclear sites, but no U.S. official has publicly said that all of the sites were vulnerable to militant attack or confirmed that any of them had previously come under any form of jihadist attack.”