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]
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: <VnStroope@aol.com> To: <soc-casi-discuss@lists.cam.ac.uk> 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 contributors, > 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="http://www.arabnews.com/">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 support > 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 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. "One of the questions it asked > 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 established, > by 2: 1margins they say no, including the Shiite population. If you ask how > 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 suggest > 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 to > undermine it, I just think that's not true." In fact, <A HREF="http://www.zogby.com/">Zogby International</A> > (ZI) in Iraq had conducted the poll, and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) > did publish their interpretation of the findings. But the AEI's "spin" and the > 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 example, > while Cheney noted that when asked what kind of government they would like, > 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 model > to be Saudi Arabia; 12 percent say Syria, 7 percent say Egypt and 37 percent > say "none of the above." That's hardly "winning hands down." When given the > choice as to whether they "would like to see the American and British forces > leave Iraq in six months, one year, or two years," 31.5 percent of Iraqis say > these forces should leave in six months; 34 percent say a year, and only 25 > 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 another > 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. For > 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 toward > the US were not positive. When asked whether over the next five years, they > felt that the "US would help or hurt Iraq,"50 percent said that the US would > hurt Iraq, while only 35.5 percent felt the US would help the country. On the > other hand, 61 percent of Iraqis felt that Saudi Arabia would help Iraq in the > next five years, as opposed to only 7.5 percent, who felt Saudi Arabia would > hurt their country. Some 50. 5 percent felt that the United Nations would help > Iraq, while 18.5 percent felt it would hurt. Iran's rating was very close to > the US', with 53. 5 percent of Iraqis saying Iran would hurt them in the next > 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, resembles > 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 rating. > > By a margin of 57 percent to 38 . 5 percent, Iraqis indicate that they would > support "Arab forces" providing security in their country. > > When asked how they would describe the attacks on the US military, 49 percent > 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 job > 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 of > their neighbors more than that of the US. That may not be what Washington wants > 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 give > every high school graduate a college education for four years. > > ~The proposed $48 billion increase in military spending for next year (2004) > 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 http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss > To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk > All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk > _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk