The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [casi] Zogby speaks

Dear Roger and casi

There are some contributors to casi who live in their isolated bubble
looking at things happening in Iraq and say every thing is OK. I do respect
their right to say what ever they want however their views are made from
their isolated bubble in London or Washington and might not be correct. They
might think it is to hot or too dangerous to visit Baghdad and have a first
hand look. While they tell us that everything is fine they tell the
immigration officers in the countries were they are refuges that they CANNOT
go to Iraq because it is still very dangerous place. Iraq will never be safe
for them to return! They much rather let someone else rebuild the country
for them (and that might take few years) and then they will tell us that
they are too old to reestablish themselves in Baghdad and after all London
and Washington is much more comfortable place.

No amount of reading or watching of TV reports about the catastrophic
condition in Iraq will change their views. Do you thing they care to read
Zogby’s report or Amnesty international report or Human rights reports. If
they do it does not move them because it is happening outside their isolated
bubble world!

Best regards

Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar

Baghdad, occupied Iraq

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 6:49 PM
Subject: [casi] Zogby speaks

> [ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]
> I believe that I have read the distorted view from two of our
> here is what James Zogby has to say about it.  Now, lets see if the US/uk
> aggression apologists will actually read this, or sweep it aside and
republish the
> nonsense.
> Published on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 by the <A
HREF="">Arab News</A>
> How the Poll Results on Iraq Were Manipulated
> by James Zogby
> Early in President Bush's recent public relations campaign to rebuild
> for the US war effort in Iraq, Vice President Cheney appeared on "Meet the
> Press." Attempting to make the case that the US was winning in Iraq,
Cheney made
> the following observations: "There was a poll done, just random in the
> 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
> to the attitudes to what Americans have done. "One of the questions it
> is: 'If you could have any model for the kind of government you'd like to
> have' - and they were given five choices - 'which would it be?' The US
wins hands
> down. If you want to ask them do they want an Islamic government
> by 2: 1margins they say no, including the Shiite population. If you ask
> long they want Americans to stay, over 60 percent of the people polled
said they
> want the US to stay for at least another year. So admittedly there are
> problems, especially in that area where Saddam Hussein was from, where
people have
> benefited most from his regime and who've got the most to lose if we're
> successful in our enterprise, and continuing attacks from terror. But to
> somehow that that's representative of the country at large or the Iraqi
people are
> opposed to what we've done in Iraq or are actively and aggressively trying
> undermine it, I just think that's not true." In fact, <A
HREF="">Zogby International</A>
> (ZI) in Iraq had conducted the poll, and the American Enterprise Institute
> did publish their interpretation of the findings. But the AEI's "spin" and
> vice president's use of their "spin" created a faulty impression of the
> poll's results and, therefore, of the attitudes of the Iraqi people. For
> while Cheney noted that when asked what kind of government they would
> Iraqis chose "the US... hands down," in fact, the results of the poll are
> actually quite different. Twenty-three percent of Iraqis say that they
would like to
> model their new government after the US; 17 .5 percent would like their
> to be Saudi Arabia; 12 percent say Syria, 7 percent say Egypt and 37
> say "none of the above." That's hardly "winning hands down." When given
> choice as to whether they "would like to see the American and British
> leave Iraq in six months, one year, or two years," 31.5 percent of Iraqis
> these forces should leave in six months; 34 percent say a year, and only
> percent say two or more years. So while technically Cheney might say that
"over 60
> percent (actually it's 59 percent) ... want the US to stay at least
> year," an equally correct observation would be that 65.5 percent want the
US and
> Britain to leave in one year or less. Other numbers found in the poll go
> further to dampen the vice president's and the AEI's rosy interpretations.
> example, when asked if "democracy can work well in Iraq," 51 percent said
"no; it
> is a Western way of doing things and will not work here." And attitudes
> the US were not positive. When asked whether over the next five years,
> felt that the "US would help or hurt Iraq,"50 percent said that the US
> hurt Iraq, while only 35.5 percent felt the US would help the country. On
> other hand, 61 percent of Iraqis felt that Saudi Arabia would help Iraq in
> next five years, as opposed to only 7.5 percent, who felt Saudi Arabia
> hurt their country. Some 50. 5 percent felt that the United Nations would
> Iraq, while 18.5 percent felt it would hurt. Iran's rating was very close
> the US', with 53. 5 percent of Iraqis saying Iran would hurt them in the
> five years, while only 21. 5 percent felt that Iran might help them. It is
> disturbing that the AEI and the vice president could get it so wrong.
Their misuse
> of the polling numbers to make the point that they wanted to make,
> the way critics have noted that the administration used "intelligence
data" to
> make their case to justify the war. The danger, of course, is that
painting a
> rosy picture that doesn't exist is a recipe for a failed policy. Wishing
> something to be can't make it so. At some point, reality intervenes. It's
a hard
> lesson to learn, but it is dangerous to ignore its importance. For the
> administration to continue to tell itself and the American people that
"all is well,"
> only means that needed changes in policy will not be made. Consider some
of the
> other poll findings:
> Over 55 percent give a negative rating to "how the US military is dealing
> with Iraqi civilians." Only 20 percent gave the US military a positive
> By a margin of 57 percent to 38 . 5 percent, Iraqis indicate that they
> support "Arab forces" providing security in their country.
> When asked how they would describe the attacks on the US military, 49
> described them as "resistance operations." Only 29 percent saw them as
> attacks by "Ba'ath loyalists."
> When asked whom they preferred to "provide security and restore order in
> their country," only 6 . 5 percent said the US. Twenty-seven percent said
the US
> and the UN together, 14 . 5 percent preferred only the UN. And the largest
> group, 45 percent, said they would prefer the "Iraqi military" to do the
> alone. There are important lessons in all of this. Lessons policy makers
ought to
> heed if they are to help Iraq move forward. What the Iraqi people appear
to be
> telling us is that they have hope for the future, but they want the help
> their neighbors more than that of the US. That may not be what Washington
> to hear, but it ought to listen nevertheless. Because if policy makers
> continue to bend the data to meet their desired policy, then this hole
they are
> digging will only get deeper.
> Roger Stroope
> Northern Arizona University
> Flagstaff USA
> ~Just 10% of our military budget spent yearly on the United States could
> every high school graduate a college education for four years.
> ~The proposed $48 billion increase in military spending for next year
> is bigger than the total military budget of any other country on earth.
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
> To unsubscribe, visit
> To contact the list manager, email
> All postings are archived on CASI's website:

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]