Clarification For The Zogby Poll
Yesterday I pointed out the recent Zogby poll which stated that 72% of our troops wanted out of Iraq. Today, Hugh Hewitt posted this up. Apparently, John Zogby crawled out from under his rock, and gave Hugh an interview. (About time seeing as how he hung up on Duane yesterday.)
I interviewed John Zogby about 1:00 Pacific today, but he hung up on me after objecting to my questions. Among the questions: Did he travel to Iraq to oversee the polling? (No.) Would he tell me who had overseen the polling? (Information International of Beirut.) Would he tell me who at Information International? (No.) What did he pay the survey takers? (He wouldn't say). Had he been invited by the someone in the American military to brief on results? (Yes.) Who was that? (He wouldn't say.)
Why hadn't he released the demographics? (He had, he said. I disagreed. He hung up.)
I'll play the interview a few times. In fairness, his office had sent the demographics info (which had not been released yesterday and still isn't on the web) but did so in a PDF file that we were only able to read after downloading a new version of Adobe. When we were talking, we didn't have the demographics. Had Zogby simply told me the demographics were now out after previously being withheld, that would have been fine. Radioblogger will post the transcript, the questions (which I did have and which I was about to get into with him when he hung up) and the survey questions and results later today.
The poll is up at Generalissimo Duane's site. It has all the questions posed, and the breakdown at the end. Needless to say, I am unimpressed by the poll. I am equally nonplussed with Mr. Zogby's reaction to Hugh's questions. They are completely legitimate, and answers are being demanded.
In my humble opinion, John Zogby composed this poll, and released it in an effort to demoralize the nation. It is a classic trick utilized by the Left, and has been an ongoing tactic in their antiwar playbook. These people dislike the fact that we acted to defend ourselves after 9/11, and they are equally outraged (actually, moreso) that we acted in a pre-emptive manner to disarm Saddam Hussein.
His failure to comply with the United Nations was the final straw. Anyone who thought that the president's idea of "serious consequences" meant harsh language, another resolution, and further sanctions was clearly not paying attention to the new world in the new century. It was made clear by the president that the "punishment" for non-compliance would be the reinsertion of a coalition force to force the dictator's hand.
Since then, Iraq has become a serious issue. The Left claims that it is still a quagmire, still buy into the lies that we found no WMDs, and still believe that he had disarmed. Recent information from two of his leading officials (General Georges Sada and Ali Ibarhim), and Richard Miniter's excellent work in "Disinformation" shows that we had found WMDs in Iraq--just not in the stockpiles the Left believed the president had predicted (which he did not)--and that he was still working on such programs. This completely blows the Left out of the water on Iraq; sinking them quicker than John Kerry's presidential campaign.
Our side maintains that he did have weapons, that those weapons were removed in the run-up to the invasion (a fact the UN corroborated), and that the region is better off with Saddam gone. Indeed, one only need look to the nations in the region that are slowly starting to shift their ideas regarding freedom. The president's bold strategy for democratization is proving to be the better policy than containment through sanctions and resolutions that are flaunted, and never adhered to.
So, the Left has turned to the people. In an attempt to break down the morale of the nation, Mother Moonbat is paraded across the TV and newspapers. Michael Moore is hailed as a genius in Hollywood (nevermind the fact that the man is a liar). And that the president has committed acts against the people of the United States that is "slowly eroding their rights." John Zogby, not one to be left out, especially when it comes to inaccurate prognostications, jumped on the dogpile. What he obviously missed was the power of the blogosphere.
Bloggers grabbed a hold of this story yesterday, and as you can see today, we have not let up. We have the poll. We have his results (which I would consider to be highly speculative especially considering his lack of being forthcoming in a simple interview). And he is now running scared; afraid that he has been nailed.
To this I have but one question: When will the "fake, but accurate" excuse be used by John Zogby?
Bunny ;)
ADDENDUM:
I just finished listening to the interview between Hugh and John Zogby. Mr. Zogby was evasive, to say the least, and flatly refused to answer any specific question. He continued to cite--as he did yesterday--security concerns. He accused Hugh of setting him up with the interview, and accused him of partisan tactics.
Hugh did nothing of the sort. His questions were more than relevant to the topic. He wanted to know some specifics, and Mr. Zogby flat-out refused to comment on them. He appeared to be open at the beginning of the interview, but he quickly turned hostile, and eventually hung up on Hugh. The interview was supposed to have been for fifteen minutes, and Mr. Zogby hung up after about four minutes.
To say that this was a phony poll is now a justified accusation. All that is being asked of him is some specific demographics. He refused. His poll speaks for itself. It is garbage; to quote Hugh, "it's crap." Indeed. In this day and age where polls can be easily skewed, exact details are needed. Because he decided to be as forthcoming as possible, it can only be surmised that he had an ax to grind, and he did a good job of it. But it holds no water with the populace, in general. I will not go so far as to call him a liar, but I will state that his poll is highly suspect, and is likely not as accurate as he claims it to be.
Updated at 6:01 p.m. Illinois time
Here is the transcript for the interview, courtesy of RadioBlogger.
HH: John Zogby, welcome to the Hugh Hewitt Show.
JZ: Hi, how are you?
HH: Good. John, your poll has created quite a lot of controversy out of Iraq. Who paid for it?
JZ: It was a gentleman who is a very wealthy individual who is anti-war, but he had absolutely no influence on any of the questions at all. He just simply wanted to know how do the troops feel? We have released the questions to everyone. The questions were very benignand objective. We're not accustomed to doing anything any other way.
HH: Has he commissioned polls from you before?
JZ: No.
HH: Did you got to Iraq to oversee the taking of the poll?
JZ: No, I personally did not. I've polled Iraq 14, 15 times, but I have a partner in the Middle East who does my Middle East polling. That's a standard procedure for those of us with global firms. We have partners overseas, some of us have franchises that actually conduct them.
HH: Who is that partner?
JZ: Hmm?
HH: Who is that partner?
JZ: Informational International.
HH: And did they send someone into Iraq to oversee it?
JZ: Yes, they did.
HH: Do you know who that was?
JZ: Yeah, employees of their own.
HH: Do you know which one?
JZ: Yeah. Does it mean anything to you?
HH: Yeah, I'd like to know.
JZ: What if I'd mention their names?
HH: I'd like that.
JZ: Well, I'm not going to mention them on the air for security reasons.
HH: They don't live in Iraq, though.
JZ: And Hugh, we made this clear to you that this was not polling Kansas, that there was security consideration. I have mentioned all the details and all the names to reporters that I trust, off the record, in an indication that the poll was honestly and objectively done. And obviously, I indicated to you and your producer beforehand, through Fritz Wenzel, our communications director, there were some thing we were just not going to discuss on the air.
HH: Right. But Information Interactive is not...
JZ: And I think your listeners understand that.
HH: Information Interactive is not an Iraqi, right?
JZ: Information International.
HH: Okay.
JZ: ...is Beirut-based, and it has offices throughout the Middle East.
HH: So did they use an Iraqi national or someone else to oversee the poll?
JZ: Hugh, do you suppose that an Iraqi national would be allowed to poll U.S. servicemen?
HH: I'm asking you. So the answer is no?
JZ: The answer is no.
HH: So why is there a security concern in telling me who the Lebanese gentleman is who oversaw the work in Iraq?
JZ: Because that's something that I won't discuss, because it comes under the provision that it's not something that you need to know.
HH: It would go to the credibility of the poll, wouldn't it, John?
JZ: Oh, it would not. No, no, no, I have given to reporters that I trust, I have given all of the details off the record. A radio talk show is not off the record, Hugh.
HH: How did you pay the contractors in Iraq?
JZ: With cash.
HH: How much per contractor?
JZ: You know what, Hugh? You're not getting anywhere with this. What you're doing is you're trying to ambush me on a radio talk show. There was an agreement before we started, that there were some things that just were out of bounds. This is out of bounds.
HH: That wasn't covered, John.
JZ: You want to talk about the results?
HH: That wasn't covered.
JZ: Do you have a problem with the results?
HH: I'm going to methodology. We did not...
JZ: No, you don't. You're going to ideology, not methodology.
HH: No, I'm asking how much you paid the contractors...
JZ: Questions were asked fairly and honestly by a respected polling firm here, and on the ground in Iraq. That's all you need to know. You want to talk to me off the record, call me after your show, and I'll verify and document everything.
HH: That's fine. That's fine. I just...
JZ: Hugh, Hugh...
HH: ...that's not a security issue.
JZ: Congratulations, you got yourself a talk show. Good luck with it, but you're not talking about anything further with methodology.
HH: Then let me ask, who did you...
JZ: We had an agreement.
HH: You said in the media that the military has asked you to brief them on the poll.
JZ: Yes.
HH: Who asked you that?
JZ: I'm not going to talk to you about that. That is very, very private and off the record.
HH: Is it a senior officer?
JZ: You know what, Hugh? Where are you going with this?
HH: I'm trying to figure out whether it should be trusted, John.
JZ: I am a very patriotic American, and did a poll objectively...
HH: Of course you are. John...
JZ: I said that there are security reasons that we're not going to get into this.
HH: John, why would a...
JZ: Talk to the Vice President of the United States if you want to.
HH: Why would the identity of the military man who asked you talk about this be a security issue?
JZ: Because I don't like your attitude, Hugh. Do you want to talk about the results?
HH: No, I want to get...
JZ: Is there something with the poll that troubles you?
HH: Yes, there's a lot. Why were no demographics released?
JZ: All the demographics were indeed released, Hugh.
HH: Okay.
JZ: All of the demographics were released.
HH: How many of these...
JZ: You see, you've got to harden your facts before you harden your mind.
HH: Where is the racial and ethnic...
JZ: We released all of the demographics, all of them.
HH: Where are the racial and ethic groups statistics put forward?
JZ: All the racial characteristics, the branches...you know what, Hugh?
HH: Are those on your website?
JZ: I'm going to make an agreement with you right now. You get yourself better informed on this poll, and I'll come back on your show.
HH: John, I've got your entire thing here. You have not released the demographics.
JZ: You are clearly uninformed.
HH: You have not released the demographics.
JZ: (click)
HH: You have not...he hung up. He hung up. That's John Zogby, not a pollster.
Updated 6:59 p.m. Illinois time
Yesterday I pointed out the recent Zogby poll which stated that 72% of our troops wanted out of Iraq. Today, Hugh Hewitt posted this up. Apparently, John Zogby crawled out from under his rock, and gave Hugh an interview. (About time seeing as how he hung up on Duane yesterday.)
I interviewed John Zogby about 1:00 Pacific today, but he hung up on me after objecting to my questions. Among the questions: Did he travel to Iraq to oversee the polling? (No.) Would he tell me who had overseen the polling? (Information International of Beirut.) Would he tell me who at Information International? (No.) What did he pay the survey takers? (He wouldn't say). Had he been invited by the someone in the American military to brief on results? (Yes.) Who was that? (He wouldn't say.)
Why hadn't he released the demographics? (He had, he said. I disagreed. He hung up.)
I'll play the interview a few times. In fairness, his office had sent the demographics info (which had not been released yesterday and still isn't on the web) but did so in a PDF file that we were only able to read after downloading a new version of Adobe. When we were talking, we didn't have the demographics. Had Zogby simply told me the demographics were now out after previously being withheld, that would have been fine. Radioblogger will post the transcript, the questions (which I did have and which I was about to get into with him when he hung up) and the survey questions and results later today.
The poll is up at Generalissimo Duane's site. It has all the questions posed, and the breakdown at the end. Needless to say, I am unimpressed by the poll. I am equally nonplussed with Mr. Zogby's reaction to Hugh's questions. They are completely legitimate, and answers are being demanded.
In my humble opinion, John Zogby composed this poll, and released it in an effort to demoralize the nation. It is a classic trick utilized by the Left, and has been an ongoing tactic in their antiwar playbook. These people dislike the fact that we acted to defend ourselves after 9/11, and they are equally outraged (actually, moreso) that we acted in a pre-emptive manner to disarm Saddam Hussein.
His failure to comply with the United Nations was the final straw. Anyone who thought that the president's idea of "serious consequences" meant harsh language, another resolution, and further sanctions was clearly not paying attention to the new world in the new century. It was made clear by the president that the "punishment" for non-compliance would be the reinsertion of a coalition force to force the dictator's hand.
Since then, Iraq has become a serious issue. The Left claims that it is still a quagmire, still buy into the lies that we found no WMDs, and still believe that he had disarmed. Recent information from two of his leading officials (General Georges Sada and Ali Ibarhim), and Richard Miniter's excellent work in "Disinformation" shows that we had found WMDs in Iraq--just not in the stockpiles the Left believed the president had predicted (which he did not)--and that he was still working on such programs. This completely blows the Left out of the water on Iraq; sinking them quicker than John Kerry's presidential campaign.
Our side maintains that he did have weapons, that those weapons were removed in the run-up to the invasion (a fact the UN corroborated), and that the region is better off with Saddam gone. Indeed, one only need look to the nations in the region that are slowly starting to shift their ideas regarding freedom. The president's bold strategy for democratization is proving to be the better policy than containment through sanctions and resolutions that are flaunted, and never adhered to.
So, the Left has turned to the people. In an attempt to break down the morale of the nation, Mother Moonbat is paraded across the TV and newspapers. Michael Moore is hailed as a genius in Hollywood (nevermind the fact that the man is a liar). And that the president has committed acts against the people of the United States that is "slowly eroding their rights." John Zogby, not one to be left out, especially when it comes to inaccurate prognostications, jumped on the dogpile. What he obviously missed was the power of the blogosphere.
Bloggers grabbed a hold of this story yesterday, and as you can see today, we have not let up. We have the poll. We have his results (which I would consider to be highly speculative especially considering his lack of being forthcoming in a simple interview). And he is now running scared; afraid that he has been nailed.
To this I have but one question: When will the "fake, but accurate" excuse be used by John Zogby?
Bunny ;)
ADDENDUM:
I just finished listening to the interview between Hugh and John Zogby. Mr. Zogby was evasive, to say the least, and flatly refused to answer any specific question. He continued to cite--as he did yesterday--security concerns. He accused Hugh of setting him up with the interview, and accused him of partisan tactics.
Hugh did nothing of the sort. His questions were more than relevant to the topic. He wanted to know some specifics, and Mr. Zogby flat-out refused to comment on them. He appeared to be open at the beginning of the interview, but he quickly turned hostile, and eventually hung up on Hugh. The interview was supposed to have been for fifteen minutes, and Mr. Zogby hung up after about four minutes.
To say that this was a phony poll is now a justified accusation. All that is being asked of him is some specific demographics. He refused. His poll speaks for itself. It is garbage; to quote Hugh, "it's crap." Indeed. In this day and age where polls can be easily skewed, exact details are needed. Because he decided to be as forthcoming as possible, it can only be surmised that he had an ax to grind, and he did a good job of it. But it holds no water with the populace, in general. I will not go so far as to call him a liar, but I will state that his poll is highly suspect, and is likely not as accurate as he claims it to be.
Updated at 6:01 p.m. Illinois time
Here is the transcript for the interview, courtesy of RadioBlogger.
HH: John Zogby, welcome to the Hugh Hewitt Show.
JZ: Hi, how are you?
HH: Good. John, your poll has created quite a lot of controversy out of Iraq. Who paid for it?
JZ: It was a gentleman who is a very wealthy individual who is anti-war, but he had absolutely no influence on any of the questions at all. He just simply wanted to know how do the troops feel? We have released the questions to everyone. The questions were very benignand objective. We're not accustomed to doing anything any other way.
HH: Has he commissioned polls from you before?
JZ: No.
HH: Did you got to Iraq to oversee the taking of the poll?
JZ: No, I personally did not. I've polled Iraq 14, 15 times, but I have a partner in the Middle East who does my Middle East polling. That's a standard procedure for those of us with global firms. We have partners overseas, some of us have franchises that actually conduct them.
HH: Who is that partner?
JZ: Hmm?
HH: Who is that partner?
JZ: Informational International.
HH: And did they send someone into Iraq to oversee it?
JZ: Yes, they did.
HH: Do you know who that was?
JZ: Yeah, employees of their own.
HH: Do you know which one?
JZ: Yeah. Does it mean anything to you?
HH: Yeah, I'd like to know.
JZ: What if I'd mention their names?
HH: I'd like that.
JZ: Well, I'm not going to mention them on the air for security reasons.
HH: They don't live in Iraq, though.
JZ: And Hugh, we made this clear to you that this was not polling Kansas, that there was security consideration. I have mentioned all the details and all the names to reporters that I trust, off the record, in an indication that the poll was honestly and objectively done. And obviously, I indicated to you and your producer beforehand, through Fritz Wenzel, our communications director, there were some thing we were just not going to discuss on the air.
HH: Right. But Information Interactive is not...
JZ: And I think your listeners understand that.
HH: Information Interactive is not an Iraqi, right?
JZ: Information International.
HH: Okay.
JZ: ...is Beirut-based, and it has offices throughout the Middle East.
HH: So did they use an Iraqi national or someone else to oversee the poll?
JZ: Hugh, do you suppose that an Iraqi national would be allowed to poll U.S. servicemen?
HH: I'm asking you. So the answer is no?
JZ: The answer is no.
HH: So why is there a security concern in telling me who the Lebanese gentleman is who oversaw the work in Iraq?
JZ: Because that's something that I won't discuss, because it comes under the provision that it's not something that you need to know.
HH: It would go to the credibility of the poll, wouldn't it, John?
JZ: Oh, it would not. No, no, no, I have given to reporters that I trust, I have given all of the details off the record. A radio talk show is not off the record, Hugh.
HH: How did you pay the contractors in Iraq?
JZ: With cash.
HH: How much per contractor?
JZ: You know what, Hugh? You're not getting anywhere with this. What you're doing is you're trying to ambush me on a radio talk show. There was an agreement before we started, that there were some things that just were out of bounds. This is out of bounds.
HH: That wasn't covered, John.
JZ: You want to talk about the results?
HH: That wasn't covered.
JZ: Do you have a problem with the results?
HH: I'm going to methodology. We did not...
JZ: No, you don't. You're going to ideology, not methodology.
HH: No, I'm asking how much you paid the contractors...
JZ: Questions were asked fairly and honestly by a respected polling firm here, and on the ground in Iraq. That's all you need to know. You want to talk to me off the record, call me after your show, and I'll verify and document everything.
HH: That's fine. That's fine. I just...
JZ: Hugh, Hugh...
HH: ...that's not a security issue.
JZ: Congratulations, you got yourself a talk show. Good luck with it, but you're not talking about anything further with methodology.
HH: Then let me ask, who did you...
JZ: We had an agreement.
HH: You said in the media that the military has asked you to brief them on the poll.
JZ: Yes.
HH: Who asked you that?
JZ: I'm not going to talk to you about that. That is very, very private and off the record.
HH: Is it a senior officer?
JZ: You know what, Hugh? Where are you going with this?
HH: I'm trying to figure out whether it should be trusted, John.
JZ: I am a very patriotic American, and did a poll objectively...
HH: Of course you are. John...
JZ: I said that there are security reasons that we're not going to get into this.
HH: John, why would a...
JZ: Talk to the Vice President of the United States if you want to.
HH: Why would the identity of the military man who asked you talk about this be a security issue?
JZ: Because I don't like your attitude, Hugh. Do you want to talk about the results?
HH: No, I want to get...
JZ: Is there something with the poll that troubles you?
HH: Yes, there's a lot. Why were no demographics released?
JZ: All the demographics were indeed released, Hugh.
HH: Okay.
JZ: All of the demographics were released.
HH: How many of these...
JZ: You see, you've got to harden your facts before you harden your mind.
HH: Where is the racial and ethnic...
JZ: We released all of the demographics, all of them.
HH: Where are the racial and ethic groups statistics put forward?
JZ: All the racial characteristics, the branches...you know what, Hugh?
HH: Are those on your website?
JZ: I'm going to make an agreement with you right now. You get yourself better informed on this poll, and I'll come back on your show.
HH: John, I've got your entire thing here. You have not released the demographics.
JZ: You are clearly uninformed.
HH: You have not released the demographics.
JZ: (click)
HH: You have not...he hung up. He hung up. That's John Zogby, not a pollster.
Updated 6:59 p.m. Illinois time
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 5:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home