Zogby impartial? Not in my mailbox

By kingronjo Posted in Comments (70) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Update [2006-3-1 13:36:28 by Moe Lane]: Generation Why? did the unthinkable - he paid for the summary - and so got access to the questions. Which was nice of him, because otherwise I would have had to.

Anyway, I don't want to violate copyright - and I don't know where citing of a cite fits on that scale - so I'll note that the breakdown of that infamous 72% is as follows: a (slight) plurality wants to leave right away and the rest are pretty much evenly divided between leaving in no more than six months and leaving no less than six months from now (numbers at Generation Why?). As Jason notes:

While Kristof and the Democrats paint the picture that these numbers are evidence of a military ready to cut and run, they don't take into account the fact that the Pentagon's existing plan calls for troop reduction of almost half in the next 6 months and about 75% by the end of the year. So it's reasonable to assume, since the responses are consistent with the existing troop reduction plan, that the respondents were taking this plan into account when answering the question. Hardly the bombshell the Left wanted to portray.

Now, this update/promotion is taking up a lot of kingronjo's oxygen, so I'll just end by noting that nobody - Republican, Democrat or Independent - benefits from the sort of silliness that Zogby tried to pull. And that we now live in a world where people notice when you put your poll details behind a subscription wall.

Oh, yes: promoted from Diaries.

My first diary.  I await the shellacking from my intellectual superiors.

I have been a member of Zogby's polling panel for several years now.  Usually when I get the request marc@mail2.zogby.com it is only to take part in one of the surveys. Today to my surprise was different.

In the message area was the title "Zogby: US troops in Iraq: 72% say end the war."  I opened it up and was shocked to see this survey results.  Here is the linked page: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Read on.Nothing like these results have ever been talked about by anyone, including the anti-war talking heads.  But in the third paragraph was the answer to how these numbers came about:  the sponsor--Le Moyne College's Center for Peace and Global Studies.  

The Center for Peace is another far left outfit that blames America for anything and everything.  For example, it is the proud sponsor of something known as the CNY Peace Consortium. The conference is always filled with the usual supsects that find fault with America first.  The keynote speaker for 2005's conference was Colman McCarthy.  One of his numerous statements was, "On April 4, 1967, Martin Luther King, Jr., said that "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is my own government." He was right then and is right now. In only the past 20 years, the U.S. government has sent troops to kill or threaten to kill people in etc, etc."  Other speakers listed were not so moderate as Mr. McCarthy in their remarks.

Never, ever, have I received from Zogby any poll result, let alone the full report.  Zogby wants to make sure that this poll was trumpeted far and wide.  His bias in 2004 is now on full display in 2006 without any pretense of impartiality.

In addition we have now the CBS poll with 409 Dem respondents and 272 Repub respondents (337 "independents).  Last I looked Repub control the WH, Senate and House, yet in this poll they are outnumbered by a 10-7 margin.  

Talk radio hosts make no bones about who they are and what they believe, left or right.  That is what makes these people so dangerous, their lies of omission.

James, 56, is the most recognized political voice of the Arab American community, a key player in trying to reshape American policy in the Middle East. And John, 53, has made the Zogby name an internationally recognized trademark, the result of his success as a political and corporate pollster.


James is founder and president of the Arab American Institute, a Washington-based organization that promotes the political interests of Americans of Arab descent and works to better American understanding of Arab interests in the Middle East conflict.

The organization runs on a $1 million annual budget, about 30 percent of which comes from individual foreign donors.

John is an integral part of the work of the 17-year-old institute, even as he continues to expand the reach and services of his firm, Zogby International, from polling to public relations and telemarketing. From its base in Utica, it handles clients on five continents.


The turning point for James was the time he spent living with Palestinian refugees in 1971 as a graduate student on his way toward a doctorate in religion from Temple University. The experience of life in the Palestinian camps "has never left me," he said.

For John, the turning point was his anti-war activism. "I saw how some of the Jewish kids could be anti-war and pacifists and, at the same time, just relish the idea of kicking the hell out of the Arabs," he said.

Source: AAI in the News

Impartial polling? You decide.

Until today. With all the current problems of online polling, they will someday be important, and I wanted to lend my voice to some of the polling. When I received this crap in my email box, I was done as well. I was surprised as you were to see this and not the usual request for a poll.

Oh well. I have better things to do with my time.

This poll, I mean.  Because the Army Times polled a Half Million readers (all soldiers, btw) on the same subject and came up with the same numbers IN FAVOUR of the war...

Raven, do you have a link for that? I never saw that poll.

Not to mince words, as there is a fair amount of this kind of sensationalist language in all circles, but the following excerpts from the header text of the zogby poll (on their site) could suggest bias:

Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay "as long as they are needed"

"just one"

While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy

- Accentuating minority despite majority claiming mission is clear.

Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown

- This seems reasonable.

Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11, most don't blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks

- The former statement is disturbing, but the latter seems to conflict with the previous question. Also, although it is common for polls to phrase things like this for dramatic effect, saying "almost 90%" has more psychological effect than stating the real number, and is unncessary to convey an "impartial" study.

Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation

- So what? Most people say this, including the administration. This is a suspicious question which I would sounds like it originated with the sponsor of the poll.

Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment

- Plurality? This is a very mild statement. This question and result is a big deal, considering how much bad press the "no body armor" has been given.

Just a quick set of observations.

I couldn't find a poll that suggest anywhere near that. The polls I found from the Army Times show falling support. Has anyone actually looked at the methods of each poll?

Zogby will not release a list of the questions, phrases or terminology used to the reader.  I don't even understand why he is making such a big deal about releasing which bases he interviewed the troops at.  As a previosu poster noted read how everything is posted in the negative. Zogby is making a deliberate point NOT to put in the raw data but to put his spin on all the answers.

"Just 30% say the DOD has failed to provide adequate troop protections..."  Why not phrase it 70% say DOD has done an adequate job?  

The burden is on Zogby to treat this poll just like any of his others and not to hide his methodology.

That 85% believe in the connection between Sadaam and 9/11...how was the question formed?

I do find it refreshing that our troops are open enough to speak their minds, and still do their jobs.

I guess I'm confused by what you're implying:

are you suggesting that of the 944 soldiers polled, Zogby's results are simply wrong or inaccurate? I understand that some would take issue with how the statistical results are presented - positive or negative.

But are you simply dismissing the polling results he obtained through paper surveys of US military personnel?

When 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, is that just a fabricated number?

cooperation from "Center for Peace and Global Studies" you automatically know that it was done on the Cindy Sheehan's friends and family.

Zogby's garbage is pure leftwing political propaganda in that poll.

Zogby (or any other credible polling firm) never has any problems releasing what the questions were they asked, the breakdown of who they asked (i.e-political affiliation if relevant, which in this case it obviously is, gender, reace, etc), where the various people were asked, etc.

But my overwhelming problem is the fact that Zogby took this poll, and only this one of the dozens I've taken with his firm, broke it down, analyzed it with his spin and blast emailed it to probably everyone on his email list.  That is outrageous, formulatting a poll for political advantage from an "independent" firm and sending it out.  Zogby charges a fee to see his polls, he doesn't give them away for free.  Put in that perspective you have to willingly shut your eyes to not understand what is going on.

I got it.

So the poll results are just made up.

In the absence of any evidence of that, the speculation sounds good enough for me.

OK by Balfour

So you aren't disputing the results of the poll.

What you're disputing is what Zogby did or didn't do in terms of releasing the supporting data, and what he (allegedly) did with the poll results in terms of how he emailed them around and made conclusions based on the results.

My understanding is that Zogby didn't release specific breakdown of the bases he polled at and the gender/race/party affiliation of the soldiers to ensure their anonymity and safety.

Personally, I didn't even read what he said about the poll results. I just looked at the results themselves.

And I think one is hard pressed to say that they weren't surprising and certainly counter to the conventional wisdom of what the troops "think" about everything.

That's just it...the poll was very suprising as I've seen multiple polls through the years that give almost the exact opposite numbers as this one (no I don't have any links).

Because of this, and the fact that the people who called for the poll obviously got the results they were hoping for, I have to raise an eyebrow at this poll and wonder about it.

Of the "soldiers" asked, how many were career officers, how many were 19 year old reservists, how were the questions worded, etc.  Were those who wanted to be out in a year of a "to heck with it" mindset, or did they think this was a reasonable timetable to accomplish the mission?

out of how many in Iraq, 150,000, and he is afraid to release party affiliation, gender, reserve/active duty, race, etc, because he "wants to ensure anonymity?"  Please dont insult my intelligence.  Maybe it is because I am a NY'er but I know when someone is peeing on my leg he cant convince me its raining.

As for disputing the results of the poll I most certainly am.  For all anyone knows he had a list of "Iraq Soldiers against the War Club" in his pocket when he made the calls.  Just like any good lawyer he would know the answers before he asked the question.  

You still have not answered the basic question, why is Zogby treating this poll so differently in his methodology then any of his others?  Why isnt he allowing other professional pollsters the opportunity to see how his results were obtained?  Even CBS does that.

100% of the soldiers in Iraq were in favor of our presence there. I would like to release the methodolgy, questions, race, gender and location of the respondents, but I can't without jeopardizing their safety. GEEEEESH.

Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay "as long as they are needed"

-"just one"

So only 20% of the troops want to carry out their commander-in-chief's request and plan.  I think this qualifies as "just"

While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy

- Accentuating minority despite majority claiming mission is clear.

So, the fact that only a bit over half of our troops know why they're there is somehow comforting?

most don't blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks

- seems to conflict with the previous question

There is no conflict between not blaming "the public at large" and assuming that the problem is coming from the locals. Example: I don't blame "the American people" for the actions of, say, gang activity in LA or a riot in New York.

Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment

- Plurality?

So more are pleased than not, but not a majority.  So less than half can say that they are pleased?  Again, this is good news?

Statistical theory shows that the size of the sample relative to the size of the population makes little difference in how accurate the poll is unless we get to the extremes, like Zogby asking 5 or 149,000 people.  Zogby's margin of error (which is the same as saying in what range he is 95% confident the actual percentage is) for 900 respondents would likely be around 3% or so, which I believe is also indicated in the article about his poll.

Where you will find bias in his data is the how he chose his sample, and thus it's disheartening that he chose not to release the population breakdown or his methodology.  Without those key facts, it's impossible to assess the validity of his poll.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't attempt to hand-pick respondents he thought would be biased against the war because I can't see how he could possibly have done that unless he took a much larger sample and then dropped respondents until he came up with his desired ratios.  That's blatant dishonesty and I rather doubt a large polling firm mindful of its reputation would do that.

Since he chose not to release his methodology I'll wait to pass judgment on his results until more transparent polls are conducted on the subject.  He may well be right, but he may well have introduced heavy bias in his results.  Strangely, he's made it impossible for anyone on the outside to tell.

I don't know if withholding polling data specifics has anything to do with ensuring anonymity, but I don't find it ridiculous at all that they would want to ensure anonymity, or data which would allow someone to infer the identity of participants. When you are in the service, you can very much get in trouble for what you say.

Something does seem a little fishy about the contrast between the Army Times poll in November 2005 (published January 3rd, 2006) and this one, but that may be because of the sample or the questions asked. The Army Times poll stated numbers of 54% and 60% (approval on handling of Iraq and general approval of President.) Does anyone know when the Zogby poll was done? (not the publish date, but the date or date range it was conducted?)


This push poll is only the latest as the left escalates for full retreat, leaving millions of Iraqis to die in new killing fields.

The anti-American bigots on the left think that yet again the nation they love needs to be defeated. Their love for this nation is the same kind of love a child molester has for children.

..are a Troll.

is not being a troll.

Pointing out how lefties love for America to lose is simple fact.

However, trying to shut down people by calling them 'troll' is rather....trollish.

While statistical theory shows that the size of a sample relative to the size of the population makes little difference in how accurate the poll is, I would imagine that when polling armed services in Iraq you would need a much more sophisticated model than when polling in the states. When polling in America, you can assume a certain level of homogeneity, and account for deviations to get the broadest representation.

In Iraq, I can see a few special issues coming up:

  • I would wager Zogby does not have a very good sociological understanding of troops in Iraq, especially in a chaotic time like this.
  • This poll was done with "unofficial" permission.

The first point: you'd have to be pretty crafty and do some sophisticated analysis to apply typical statistical models to a region like this. I would imagine a soldier seeing action every day has vastly more psychological pressure on him than someone pushing papers. (not disparaging the paper pushers by any means) If you polled half and half, even though 80% of the troops are seeing action (or whatever, I'm pulling these numbers out of thin air) you'd get an inaccurate sample. And that's simplistic. There are almost certainly variations from troop to troop, region to region, etc, etc..

On the Second point, assuming you had a fantastic statistical model that accounted for these types of variations, it would seem they would have difficulty accessing all of the troops they would need to generate an accurate statistical model.

Again, this is all theory. I've got some sociology and statistics, but I'm just pointing out things which may well have been addressed by the pollster.

That being said, I don't recall debates over the finer points of statistics with polls that were flattering to the President or the war in Iraq, and these problems would exist in those cases as well, plus other dangers like authoritative pressure which could taint results.

In conclusion, (yes, really) this would certainly suggest a drop in approval, but like the last poster, we'd have to see the details to know if it's as dramatic as has been stated. Of course, by the time that happens, the headlines will have died down and the impression made, for better or for worse.

You do not have the right to maintain what you consider to be appropriate standards of conduct for this site.  Do not presume otherwise.


Iraq's role in 9/11.

Bin Laden met w/ Saddam's top security advisor several times before 9/11.  He also met w/ Saddam's top munitions/exposives expert.

While he may not have the right to determine appropriate standards of conduct for the site, he does have the right to call someone out who is vulgar enough to compare people that disagree with him to child molesters.  

I'm the bad cop.

You're on probation, and essentially got a 1-UP mushroom at some point. That 1-UP wasn't a star.

Thank you for your time and attention.

he was not comparing those who disagree with him to child moleters, he was comparing those who wish us to be defeated in Iraq to child molesters. Unfair to child molesters, to be sure, but otherwise appropos.

But more to the point, you don't register an hour ago and start opining on proper conduct. Or you don't do it more than once.

Maybe I scanned to fast but Kingronjo did mention the administrations well known plans to scale back troop totals.  He cites the projections and if he knows about them and even I know about them and even my parrot, when not crapping on it, reads the NY Times and knows about it, is it fair to say the word has gotten around the ranks in Iraq?  Would it then be beyond understanding that the troops are getting antsy and doing something that just perhaps has occured once or twice in military history, something  the Greek hoplites may have had a word for, griping. The results  are  really not suprising and neither are they negative given what we, and they, know.  For that matter if anybody had polled U.S. troops in Korea after the talks in Panmounjan started they probably would have been told the soldiers couldn't dig their foxholes deep enough.

So only 20% of the troops want to carry out their commander-in-chief's request and plan.  I think this qualifies as "just"

It does. That's why stating "just" is unncessary, unless you feel clarifying or accentuating that point is necessary. But like I said, this may be a typical convention used by pollsters in conveying results to the public.

So, the fact that only a bit over half of our troops know why they're there is somehow comforting?

No, it's not comforting. It's disturbing. It's disturbing that so many soldiers believe there was a link between Saddam and 9/11, when both President Bush and the 9/11 commission have stated otherwise. But the statement itself stands in contrast to the way other results were phrased, and since we're discussing the possibility of bias, I thought it was noteworthy.

There is no conflict between not blaming "the public at large" and assuming that the problem is coming from the locals. Example: I don't blame "the American people" for the actions of, say, gang activity in LA or a riot in New York.

I see what you're saying. You may be right, I don't really know what it's like over there. However, your analogy is bad. The nature, impact and the number of gang activity/a riot relative to the entire American population is remarkably different than the same for the insurgents relative to the population of Iraq. (more insurgents, smaller population, continuous problem vs. incident (riot) and impact (occasional LA shooting and crime vs. RPG attacks, suicide bombing, snipers, constant attacks on soldiers)

So more are pleased than not, but not a majority.  So less than half can say that they are pleased?  Again, this is good news?

Exactly. That's pretty much the DEFINITION of plurality. "more than the other, but generally, not more than half" (it's almost always used in cases where it excludes a majority) However, look at the actual Zogby release:

"A majority of the troops serving in Iraq said they were satisfied with the war provisions from Washington. Just 30% of troops said they think the Department of Defense has failed to provide adequate troop protections, such as body armor, munitions, and armor plating for vehicles like HumVees."

Do "war provisions" not include the armor, munitions, etc?

promoted from the diaries!!  I don't think I'll ever write another one again cuz how can I top it?

Well, not that wikipedia is a great source for controversial issues, but:

"How likely it is that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th Terrorist attacks?" The response was 32% very likely, 37% somewhat likely, 12% not very likely and 3% not at all likely[47]. This unsubstantiated view was promoted by the U.S. government in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when for example, Vice President Dick Cheney suggested that Iraq was involved in the September 11 attack during a "Meet the Press" interview: Iraq is "the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11" (Knight-Ridder October 3, 2003, archived at [48]). No clear evidence has emerged to support the claim. (Unsubstantiated U.S. government claims to the contrary include: (1) allegations by Czech intelligence of a meeting between 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague on the same day Atta was seen in Florida; and (2) evidence that Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, allegedly a contact of Iraqi intelligence, was present at a meeting in Malaysia where future 9/11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar is believed by the CIA to have attended.)

Official denials of link:

9/11 commission:


"9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida"


No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda, 9/11 Panel Says


Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed


President Bush:


I'm assuming Zogby probably went for something close to a simple random sample.  To try and artifically control for an unknowable amount of sociological factors that Zogby, not having served in the military, would have very little feel for would make no sense.  If that's true, then his results are probably reasonably accurate, assuming that his questions were not unquestionably biased or that there weren't psychological factors at play with the soldiers (factors, I would think, that would actually skew the results toward more approval).

Like I said before, I have no particular reason to disbelieve the results, but it would be helpful to know the methodology so we could compare to other polls.  And statistically speaking, everyone should realize one poll showing one thing doesn't mean terribly much - it's repeated polls that confirm the significance of the results.  It would be nice to see other polling organizations conduct polls using the same sampling procedure to confirm or deny Zogby's results.

I noticed there are a few people who are asking why isnt anyone bothered that the troops want to leave, or that most soldiers think that Sadaam was responsible for 9/11, etc. Until the actual questions are released, you have to realize that these comments are not the questions themselves and just Zogbys analysis of them.

For all we know the question could have been "If Iraq were instantly perfect today would you leave?" and turn it into "Troops want out now!" or,

"are you 100% completely, totally satisfied with the gear you are outfitted with or would you add something if you could" and turn it into "Troops feel they have insufficient armor" or,

'do you think Iraq had ties to terrorism" and turn it into "troops think Sadaam caused 9/11"

anything can be twisted into what you want it to be.

glad to see you're quoting from it.  

As any one who pays attention to these things knows Wikipedia is a self-written "encyclopedia" that anyone with any agenda can post to.

As an example, Czech intel stands by their assertion Atta met with the Iraqi agent.  No proof has ever been offered other than the "he was seen" statement.  The Czechs also have eyewitnesses, airport surveillance tape and even expelled a member of the Iraqi mission over this meeting.  While there is no knowledge of what was discussed for certain, what is certain is Atta's visa bears a Czech rep stamp on it.  To say 9/11 was discussed is a big stretch; to say it wasn't for a certainty borders on Bush Derangement Syndrome.

my better, more knowledgable, quoting from the Tariq Aziz non-denial link: http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/2002question/prague.htm

When you spot interesting stuff quick and do good analysis, it's only appropriate. I am glad they promoted your diary.

Is not a leftist tool.  Its everyones tool, right and left and independent.

It has problems and it isn't perfect by any means.  But as a rule it tends to be one of the least biased sources of information freely available.  The reason is natural selection.  If one side doesn't like what is written they write it to their satisfaction, but they can't go too far or it will be re-written by the other side.  On MOST issues this eventually results in an article that reports facts agreed to by both sides.  The facts that aren't agreed upon by all sides get removed by this process.   Wikipedia has a mechanism for contesting neutrality and it will warn you if an article's neutrality has been contested.

I contributed to one article for it which was very sparse, and I probably was slightly biased it in my writing.  About a month later I read it and 90% of what I had written was still there, but the 10% that was arguably biased had been removed by someone and they had also put in a few more points which seemed neutral to me so I didn't go back to re-edit it.  That's how it works.  Its hardly a 'leftist tool', unless you suggest that only leftists write on the internet, but of course the fact that redstate is here disproves that.

because he referred to it.

I wouldn't consider it a leftist tool though, because like you said "Wikipedia is a self-written "encyclopedia" that anyone with any agenda can post to." Including anyone on the right. If you look through revision histories and comments for "controversial" pages (which are often marked) you can see these little battles being played out.

...for pointing out the obvious, I'd like to uh... point out that the poster included quite a few other reputable references other than Wikipedia.

Perhaps it could be said that lefties love America like a spouse beating husband loves his wife?

Would that make you feel better?

I am disputing the results.

Until Zogby releases both (a) the demographic breakdown of his sample and (b) his questions, there is absolutely no reason to grant this poll any kind of validity, given that the results are both self-contradictory and wildly out of whack with all available anecdotal evidence.

Of polls from the NRA that suggest everybody wants a gun, polls from the American Communist Party that say everybody wants socialized medicine, and I'm suspcious of polls done in conjuction with a highly partisan, extremely left-wing organization. In tandem with Zogby, and organization that, over the past several years, has had counter-intuitive poll results that have turned out to be counter intuitive because no other poll got the same sorts of results. And real world polling (such as, for example, elections results) tended to run contrary to Zogby's "counter intuitive" results.

Plus, it's hard to argue that the way it was released was not intended to shape opinion more than measure it. Maybe that's a good thing to do, maybe it's a bad thing, but it's unquestionably what was being done.

And please stop pushing the argument.

To do so makes those who still believe that there's a link sound lke the nutcases who believe that the government was behind taking down the towers with explosives, and that a missle hit the pentagon.

For Iraq and 911.

There is a strong link between Iraq and Al Quaeda.

The phrasing of the questions would shed light on the analysis.  Yes, the 76% number is what it is, but why?  Perhaps a large portion of that 76% believe we're approaching the point where Iraqi security forces will take over entirely on the ground, although with pleanty of violence for some time, and the U.S. will be able to conduct it's planned draw down.  

That is a scenario where upwards of 76% believe we will be leaving in the next 12 months on our terms, job done.  That's quite a bit different than the spin Zogby pushed through is e-mail.  Understanding the questions and the data puts the analysis in context as to which is the more accurate picture, which is why Zogby won't release it.  

And did you notice that your diary (not just RedState) has a link on the post on Generation Why?

Good job.

is established and definitive.  That is all I stated and everything else mentioned is just under the heading "Realm of Possibility" since no one knows what was discussed.

As for Wikpedia, perhaps you missed the Congressional staffers rewriting articles on it?  from the wikipedia editors themselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-01-30/Congre
 To think that isnt the tip of the iceberg on all sorts of misleading articles is wihful thinking. I'm quite sure that the editors cant go and check every fact.  For example, take a look at the article quoted above concerning Atta's trip to the Czech Rep.

"1) allegations by Czech intelligence of a meeting between 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague on the same day Atta was seen in Florida;"  yet it is a statement of fact by the Czech government borne out with evidence to support it.  

So, it used to be history was written by the winners. Now, in your best case scenario, history is written by the last person to post at Wikpedia.

And I just threw that away yesterday.  i don;t keep papers around that long...

As for the other post showing falling suppport, you are correct, support IS falling.  It has fallen to the levels I posted above...

Sheehan's family Supports the war and her son's participation in it.  that's why they left her on her own last year...

The Al Qaeda operatives working in Chemical weapons labs in Fallujah (just mentioned a couple weeks ago, on Redstate, btw).

The money Saddam paid out to the families of suicide bombers, including the 9/11 bombers

These are ALL substantiated links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.  Perhaps not 9/11, but no more than a handful of soldiers believe in the link the poll is suggesting.  We DO believe in the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda...

Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times, Marine Corp Times, are not military publications. While they focus on the respective services, they are part of the same media group that publishes USA Today. Their reporting needs to be seen in that light.

time and again people here have asked you for links to these statements you make and yet you have not, why not?

Bush has stated that there is NO link between Iraq - 9/11 - Al Qaeda.

Cheney said that Atta met with Iraqi diplomats in Prague before DENYING that he ever said that.

Do you really expect us to believe on faith that you somehow miraculously have better intel then the WH?

Please if you can't back up what you state here do not just ignore the query and keep on threading further down - address these questions and post one credible link for these "conspiracy theory" statements and statistics you continuously banter about.

Just to be clear - a "credible" source is not a post from another, or this, blog that does not contain any credible sourcing either.

Not trying to be snarky I'm just exhausted from the breakdown of civil discourse, the intellectual dishonesty of just slinging doo doo around to see what will stick.

I could imagine a context where that would be greatly disturbing, like using it for case law or precedent.

On the other hand I could imagine a context where that is completely fine. (Like referring to it in a discussion of on-line first amendment freedoms)

...should have included a sarcasm marking...

you post links and expect no one to read them obviously.  The link that you supplied for Cheney makes clear that in the beginning the Admin said no way Iraq-9/11 were connected.  But from YOUR link:

"MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don't know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn't have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization."

Thanks for helping to make my point that NO ONE is exactly positive as to what exactly occured.

Now, because some people have trouble believing that other people can read press conferences and put in all sorts of fact and details, but either lie about them or get them wrong, here is a linky from one of the MSM that may help you:


I suggest, no declare, that people who close their eyes to any and all possibilities are the conspiracy theorists.  You have your mind closed and cannot see any other facts than the ones you want.  I have not taken any position.  I don't know what was discussed and dont pretend to.  You, on the other hand are so busy screaming "nothing took place" that you did not bother to notice from your own link VP Cheney also does not know the absolute truth.

I'm not being snarky, but in the end, I can only answer the questions, I can't make you understand the answers.

That you demand links from me when all this is on Redstate already.

It's even funner that you claim links have been demanded from Me personally "time and again" when no such thing has occurred...

my thread without the bias that you bring to the equation you would see that all I'm doing is questioning Raven on the statements made here. Raven has posted several times upthread with some pretty extreme statements and ignored people that asked for proof.

I never said I have the final answer but that there is contradictory information on all these issues so Raven should stop throwing stinkbomb conspiracy theory's without an iota of backup.

Raven has posted that there are clear links between Iraq and Al Qaeda I simply point out that I'll take Bush's denials and Cheney's uncertainty over Raven's BS.

 And if you go back to the paragraph before the one you quote Cheney say's with certainty "it's been pretty well confirmed" that Atta met with so and so - and then Cheney says he said no such thing in a subsequent interview. (you have to scroll down to the Berger interview transcript). Cheney flip flopped of that I can be sure.

You're unsolicited defense of Raven is quite gallant but my query of Raven remains the same - just one link to a credible source outside of the Redstate myopia.

do the work for ya. Scroll upthread and you'll readily find I'm not the only one that questions your statements. Don't cop out "this is on Redstate already", the "everybody's doing it" defense didn't work on my parents it shouldn't fly for you.

Just one link to a credible source that's all I ask.

Tone back the tone. Two warnings don't give you the cred to take generalized shots across the bow.

There were clearly links between Iraq and Al Qaeda- the interactions of the two are even documented in the 9-11 report.

However, there is no strong link between Iraq and 9-11 attacks.

But there is a big general link between Iraq and 9-11 attacks: What was A.Q's #1 reason for attacking us on 9/11? Had nothing to do with Israel- it was because we were "occupying" the holy land of Saudi Arabia. Why did we have troops in Saudi Arabia? Because we had to go there to defend against Saddam Hussain after he invaded Kuwait. What's the bottom line link between Iraq and 9-11? 9-11 may never have happened if the manical behavior of Saddam didn't force us to send troops into Saudi Arabia. There's a lot of payback to go around, IMHO, for 9-11, and Saddam certainly deserves a piece of it for setting the chain of events in motion.




I could go on, but I'm not doing work for you. Move along.


VICE PRES. CHENEY: There was a poll done, just random in the last week, first one I've seen carefully done; admittedly, it's a difficult area to poll in. Zogby International did it with American Enterprise magazine. But that's got very positive news in it in terms of the numbers it shows with respect to the attitudes to what Americans have done.

Meet the Press, September 14, 2003

you do realize, I hope, that this is three years old.

Try to make at least an indirectly relevant point. Or be gone. I don't care.

before you believe I have no opinion?  Pretty hard to have any sort of bias when you have no thoughts on the matter one way or the other.  The mental gymnastics to come up with that conclusion I freely admit I am unable to master.  (Redstate myopia- good one!!!)  

So Cheney backs off from saying "pretty well confirmed" (quoting the Czech Minister from 26 OCT 01) of the meeting between Atta and the Iraqi minister to saying now it cannot be confirmed or denied.  Sort of like his thoughts on Iraq not being involved in 9/11 to not being sure a few months later, don't you think?  Ever hear of the "fog of war?"  26 OCT was 6 weeks after 9/11 and 9 DEC was 12 weeks.  I bet if we go back we can find a lot of things that either took place or didnt take place that are not quite as positive as once thought.

A flip flop is voting yes before voting no.  A "pretty sure" -75%- going to a "not sure" -50%-doesn't qualify.

I don't have time to dig around for people who refuse to do their own work...

That said, they certainly seem to have pretty even reporting.  Maybe it's because of their audience...

There was 1 request for a link to the poll I was talking about and I replied with the fact that all I had was the Army Times hardcopy.  Furthermore, the same poll was linked to by someone who had seen it online.

As to the "extreme statements" closer above, they Are on Redstate already and that is where I came across them myself.  I'm sure there's a simple search function you can use.

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service