On the surface, your premise sounds like a good one. Only when you stop and think about it, does it sound ridiculous.

Sounds like somebody does not like the results of the poll.

Denz, Don't think it was so much the results of the poll as the questions asked to get the results of the poll. As you well know one can get any results desired from a poll by the wording of the question.

Denzien, we can fold up the tents, the Village "expert" has spoken.

Mr. Produnce,
Thank you for not condescending this time. Hope it is a forerunner of the new you.

Like most overssampled push polls, the Zogby Poll in question is tainted by partisan influence. go find out WHO commissioned this poll with Zogby, and you'll knoww why.

Never again will I trust the results of a Zogby Poll.

Bubba, WHO did commission this poll? From the posting made, it sounds as if the information is there...if so, why not reveal it?

In some ways, I agree with the LTE writer. Almost any soldier in combat would invaribly say that he/she would rather be home. However, I think the problem with this poll is that it truly states the feeling of far too many soldiers engaged in the Bush Military Middle East Boondoogle!

Shalom

I would also like to know who authorized the poll. I would also like to know what the soldiers will say when and if they return home and are out of the control of the military.

FYI

Troops say they want to come home

Poll of forces in Iraq shows majority think U.S. should leave within a year.

Nearly three of every four American troops serving in Iraq think the United States should withdraw all its troops and end the war within a year, according a Zogby-Le Moyne College poll released Tuesday.

Le Moyne faculty helped develop and word the poll's questions, which were given to troops in face-to-face interviews in Iraq, pollster John Zogby, of New Hartford, said.

Zogby said the poll was commissioned by a wealthy war opponent, whom he would not name. Zogby said the man "had no input into the questions or analysis and was not trying to make a point."

Despite President Bush's declaration that American troops should remain in Iraq as long as needed, 72 percent of 944 military members polled there said he should bring all the troops home within 12 months.

More than a quarter said American forces should leave immediately.

"The results are startling," Zogby said. "I'm not the first person to use the term 'Viet-

nam,' but it does suggest somewhat of a morale issue - certainly a disagreement."

Other people have done polls in Iraq, but this is the first time anyone has quizzed soldiers on duty. Zogby said he did not know of any other poll of on-duty troops during previous wars.

"The highest levels of the military have invited me to make a presentation (on the poll results), and I intend to do that as soon as I can," Zogby said without elaborating.

Zogby's company, Zogby International, hired Beirut-based Information International, which in turn hired poll-takers and field workers who surveyed the troops in person, Zogby said.

He said they got an 85 percent response rate, nearly three times the typical 30 percent response rate he said he receives for telephone polls conducted in the United States.

Zogby said the poll, conducted between Jan. 18 and Feb. 14, has a plus or minus 3.3 percent margin of error.

Of the respondents, 41 percent were in the regular Army, 25 percent were Marines, 17 percent were National Guard and 16 percent were Reserves. Forty-four percent said they were serving their second tour in Iraq, and about the same number said they had spent six to 12 months in Iraq.

Jeffrey Stonecash,a Syracuse University political science professor who conducts polls, said he was reluctant to discuss the methods in Zogby's poll because he has so few details about how it was done.

"You just don't know what to make of it," he said. "It just depends on who you got, and I don't know how that was done. Did you walk around the streets and get guys who are being fired at? I just don't know."

White House spokesman Ken Lisaius reiterated Bush's intention to "take this fight to the enemy without wavering."

"The president does not govern by poll," Lisaius said.

Zogby said he found a number of the survey's results troubling and surprising.

"There is confusion about the mission," he said, noting 42 percent of the troops said they were unclear on the United States' role in Iraq.

The poll asked the troops to agree or disagree on a number of reasons the United States is in Iraq. Some 85 percent listed "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks" as the main reason or a major reason.

"That was a curious response," Zogby said.

The 9/11 commission report in 2004 found "no credible evidence" Iraq had aided al-Qaida in the attacks.

Zogby notedthat only 23 percent believed the United States is in Iraq "to build a democratic model for the region."

Seventy-five percent said stopping Saddam from protecting the terrorist organization al-Qaida in Iraq was a major or main reason, while 68 percent identified removing Saddam from power.

Barron Boyd, a Le Moyne political science professor and director of the college's Center for Peace and Global Studies, helped Zogby develop the questions and shared the pollster's reaction to the main finding.

"I was surprised by the percentage of people who want to come home in a year," Boyd said. "It's hard to know exactly what to make of that. It could be that the troops are just tired and want to come home."

Boyd noted Marines in particular and regular Army were far less likely to urge withdrawal than were National Guard and Reserve members.

Elizabeth Hall, 24, a former Army reservist from Syracuse, came home from a tour in Iraq two years ago. Her brother and brother-in-law are there now. If a pollster had asked her when she was in Iraq if she wanted to leave, what would she have said?

"That I wanted to go home," she said. "A lot of good has come out of it, but I definitely think it's time to come home."

Geoff Fiutak, of Skaneateles, who served in a civil affairs unit in Iraq from March 2003 to March 2004 and left the Army reserves in November, said he thought the number of troops who said the United States should leave Iraq quickly seemed high.

"I think we should stay until we stabilize the country," said Fiutak, 38. "I think it's important for the long-term security of our country to establish a track record that we won't start something and leave before it's finished."

Erik Kriss can be reached at erikriss@aol.com or (518) 463-8038. Michelle Breidenbach can be reached at mbreidenbach@syracuse.com or 470-3186.

I agree that this poll (and most others ) is kinda meaningless. I'm betting if they did a poll of soldiers in combat zones during WW1, WW2, the Korean War, etc. they would probably say about the same thing.

I'm sure the higher commanding Generals would have a better idea of when we should leave Iraq than most of the soldiers polled.

I think most poll takers have some desire to make a point, one way or the other. And like others said, you can get a poll to say anything you want if you rephrase the questions the right way.

Every paper and person has an agenda. If they say they don't, they are lying.

Carol provided the answer to your question, Darryl. That fact alone invalidates it. But there is more. MUCH more....

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/02/the_zogby_poll_.html

http://upperleftcoast.blogspot.com/2006/03/zogbys-iraq-poll-fact-or-fiction.html

Exerpt (from the comments):

"As you point out, not only does Zogby not follow clear professional standards of identifying who commissioned the poll, his findings are at odds with the comments we hear from soldiers coming back from Iraq, not to mention those who return to Iraq. If the feeling was that clearcut, wouldn't a local news outlet, say The Oregonian, have printed a story (or many stories) pointing out that the majority view of Oregon National Guard members returning from Iraq think it's time to leave?

Zogby's data isn't credible given his propensity to come out favoring the views of the person funding the poll, his refusal to identify who commissioned the poll, and the lack of supporting interviews from other sources with current or demobilized US service people who served in Iraq."

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/03/zogby_troop_pol_2.html

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/03/polling_zogby_a.php

If some pollster had asked me where I would rather be during my first tour of Nam. I would have said I'd rather be home. If they had asked me on the second tour, I would have said, I'd rather be home. If they had asked me on any of the other half dozen assignments to overseas areas both military and civilain, I would have replied, I'd rather be home. Ask that question of any individual who is assigned overseas either military or civilain and you will find that the majority will say, I would rather be home. It is a very normal reply but then of course some would attempt to slant any reply to mean that "I am against what ever and I think we all should be home."
Any poll taker, as I stated earlier, can slant the question to give the response desired.

And DD, I haven't had time to reply to any of your mornonic statements lately so no I haven't had a change of thinking when it comes to your as usual moronic post. Have no fear for I will return to yank your chain occassionaly and when I am gone someone else can have the pleasure. Otherwise I will just ignore you as I have been doing. When will I return? Only the shadow knows.

What I got from the poll is that not only do the soldiers want to be home but that they were as unclear as the American people are as to why they are there and that they think it is time to bring our troops home.

Maybe you find the poll unacceptable, but I think all polls have some validity. It stated that career soldiers and reserves have a slightly different view, as should be expected.

Staying in Iraq until we "win" will not happen in our life time, IMO. We can say we won and leave or we can get ready to build another memorial in DC years from now.

Carol, don't believe I said I found it acceptable or unacceptable. I just stated a fact that one can slant questions to achieve the results desired.

Just like the old yes or no question given in many courses on poll taking. Answer yes or no.

Carol, are you still drinking as much as you use to?

No matter how you answer the question it can be construed that you drink and probably heavily. Do you understand what I am saying about polls.

Or better yet Carol, just DO NOT answer the question! Then there is no "yes or no" to be dealt with on that question!f

Seems pretty simple to me. =)

Shalom

More on the bogus Zogby Poll findings....

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/03/kane_on_the_zog.html

Carol,
Your comments are appreciated. Like many others, I find the comment about you drinking to be very reprehensible and hope "Walter Mitty" finds some other outlet for his imagination.

Carol,
Mr. Produce doesn't realize he doesn't have to use your name in his examples--it is just another device used to make him feel superior to women and others he feels are incompetent. His condescending tone is a tip off to his own "shortcomings". (no pun intended)

DD you are an idiot. Pure and simple for only and idiot could have jumped to any conclusion that you did. I am sure that Carol is intelligent enough to know the meaning of my comments. No where did I make any assumption that Carol drinks. Another question often sited in this same "entrappment" category is stated as this. Do you still beat your wife as often as before when you drank excessively? I simply used a question that is used in many classes and seminars on research, but then you wouldn't understand what those are since evidently you education has been limited to the Bob Villa school of arrogance and annoyance. Your morornic statements are growning rather dull DD as many have stated here before. Grow up and allow adults with the level of intelligence necessary to have an actually discussion on these blogs to do so. Perhaps you might understand this poll question. "Do you still have the reading comprehension problem that you had as a child or has it grown worse?"

Must say that I am not drinking less these days (now that could mean that I still drink a lot, drink a little, or I never drank at all) I did get your point MrP.

Doesn't look like loaded questions were asked, just disagree or agree as in the "Why are we here" example given on the post above. I really think the LTE was a little hysterical about the poll, and I think it was OK to print the article. That is news to me, whether you agree or disagree with the results.

Mrproduce, I think some who post here are children of those old burned out 60s hippies and all that weed they smoked back then has somehow made it's way into their genes. This is the only rational explanition as I see it.

After I was drafted, had anyone asked me where I wanted to be, the answer would always have been "anywhere but here". Same story today. Of course the people in the military would rather be home than in Irag (a little Babs spelling there). The only point of this poll as I see it is the lamestream media has ran out of ammo and now must resort to phony polls in order to bash Bush. What else is new?...

Ding, Ding, Ding....We have a winner....posts can cease now! Congratulations neocon....your prizes will be forthcoming via one of the excellent package delivery company's!

Shalom

Produce,
Go back to your easy chair, and pretend you are something out of a spy novel. Or better yet, go walk the perimeter of the shopping mall and pick up your check from Wackenhut.

From Carol's post:

If a polsrer had asked a 24 yr. old reservists if she wanted to stay in irag or go home,she would have answered "to go home".

When Geoff Fituak,38, was asked, he replied " I think we should stay and stabilize the country".

Note the difference in age (and maturity imo)

I'd be willing to bet if Zogby polled people who attended the DNC convention, he would find a great majority of them would not have voted for Bush.

NeoCON,

Your point seems to be that we need to have older soldiers.
I can only imagine the older soldier with a wife and family probably thinks,
"Why am I fighting for these people who aren't stepping up to the plate?
What is so important about Fallujah?
What happened to the Powell Doctrine?"

As one who has been involved in writing the questions to be asked in polls I can assure you that ALL polls have an objective. The questions asked are meant to meet that objective. This poll obviously wanted to verify what percentage of soldiers would rather be home than on duty in a war zone, and what percentage of soldiers were unclear as to their mission. It seems to have met its goal. The significant point made was its total lack of validity, and this not intended by the pollsters, by includng in their polling such a large group of Weekend Soldiers rather than Professional Soldiers. Weekend Warriors should be expected to be unclear as to their mission since they are not trained for the mission, but merely called up as needed to fill posts as support troops for the professionals.

BrendaBee, from what has been stated, then NO poll should be believed due to the fact that ALL are rigged. Is that the point that was desired to be made?

And regarding asking the "Weekend Soldier" as compared to asking the "Professional Soldier," what is the difference? Each, in all likelihood would rather be stationed in a relatively safe environment, NOT a zone of battle and bloodshed.

Honestly, I find the term "Weekend Soldier" condesending. While as a Quaker I am pro-Peace and not in favor of militaristic encounters, I stand by previous comment. And remember, it was those early "Weekend Soldiers" who were called upon to help run the British out of the New World. I would not discredit that group so flippantly. Remember, quite a few of them have sacrificed their life for the Bush Middle East Boondoogle. And many, many more have been injuried permanently as well.

Lastly, why should those "Weekend Warriors" (using BrendaBee's word) be less clear about their mission than the "Professional Soldier?"

My dad's unit in the US Army was from an Army Reserve Unit out of Wisconsin. He knew what his mission was when called upon. A grand-uncle who served in WWII was part of a reserve unit called into action. He received the Silver Star for his deeds in the Solomon Islands. He knew his mission. Here are two examples of "Weekend Warriors" who were called upon who knew their mission. What is different now as compared to then?

Could it be that there is no clearly defined mission and the powers that be squirm when a poll such as this is used?

That is my thought on the poll. Then of course, according to BrendaBee, "...I can assure you ALL polls have an objective."

"This poll obviously wanted to verify what percentage of soldiers would rather be home than on duty in a war zone, and what percentage of soldiers were unclear as to their mission. It seems to have met its goal."

"The significant point made was its total lack of validity....."

Again, with these thoughts in mind, I guess I should stop believing poll results and participating in them. Maybe BrendaBee's conclusions are why the current occupant of the People's House does not read newspapers.

Shalom

Does anyone have the poll results taken by Zogby about whether the military personell would rather have been in Bosnia or home? No? How about Haiti? No? How about Kosovo? No?....

neoCON was there even such polls taken?

If not, then that shows the invalidation of the post! Common sense dictates that.

Shalom

Darryl, if you ain't one, and you ain't, don't take the term "Weekend Warrior" to be condesending. My young man and my son-in law are both WW's and both have pulled a tour in Iraq. They jokingly say that it was one heck of a long weekend.
As far as knowing their mission BrendaBee, they both understood their mission well. My young man is in the Army , a career soldier with over 12 years now, and he and the men in his charge certainly understood the mission. As with any mission it can have changes but they are trained to adjust to those changes. My son-in-law is career Air Force with over 16yrs now. He understood his mission when he was in Iraq and also in Gulf 1. His mission changed from being the "filling station guy in the sky" in Gulf I to maintaining refueling systems capabilities and training others to do the same during this tour. One job on the ground the first one in the air. The job was completed on both accounts.
So BrendaBee, don't worry too much about offending real WW's by using their nickname. Do understand that they are actually very well trained and capable of doing the same job as the Regulars.

Wow mrp, I love the dicathomy of your son & son-in-law. First it is stated, "My young man and my son-in law are both WW's and both have pulled a tour in Iraq. They jokingly say that it was one heck of a long weekend."....then it is stated, "My young man is in the Army , a career soldier with over 12 years now,......My son-in-law is career Air Force with over 16yrs now."

So, are we to take it that they are career regular military or WW's? Which is it, it cannot be both. And please do not come back trying to play super sleuth and say it can be. I have consulted a friend who is in the loop on this one!

Also, I can call anyone anything that I so desire....ever hear of the 1st Amendment? That gives me that right....as long as I am not slandering. And I do not see calling someone a WW as slander.

Plus, your post only goes to prove my point in show BrendaBee's earlier post being invalid...just like the poll that BrendaBee is trying to prove invalid.

Shalom

"neoCON, was there ever such polls taken?"

Am I to understand that the polsters NEVER TOOK POLLS of military personell and their desire to go home under the slick willie adm.? How could they have overlooked that? There must be some mistake. Or perhaps there wasn't any desire by the media to know what the military people thought of being deployed under Clinton. Could that be???Hmmm...

Neocon, would you have found the poll invalid if the results said, "We love being in Iraq. We applaud the Bush administration, we know we are here to bring freedom to the Iraqi people, etc."

I don't think so.

Darryl,
Glad to see you calling Mr. Produce on his "inconsistencies". I can only imagine a henpecked man sitting at the computer, imagining he is Agent 007 on a mission to find out where all the terrorists are hiding in Western North Carolina. "The Secret Life of Mr. Produce"

"Mr. Produce doesn't realize he doesn't have to use your name in his examples--it is just another device used to make him feel superior to women and others he feels are incompetent. His condescending tone is a tip off to his own "shortcomings". (no pun intended".

Ha Ha DD, aren't you the one who was calling people Cry Babies a couple of weeks ago? So what does that say about you?

Of course I should have made sure that is who did it before I said that? Either way JAJ. Thought I would "attempt" to lighten things up in here. tee hee

Littlebuddababy,
You cut me to the quick!

I do not remember calling anyone a "cry baby".?
Could have, but I don't recall. (learned that from the Gipper!)

Mr. Produce is trying to help Hugh out by reading the "Online Edition" of POPULAR MECHANICS. I'm still laughing at that one! I'm dropping my subscription to The Economist and picking up POPULAR MECHANICS! Evidently, that is the last bastion of support for Bush since the National Review baled on him last week. William F. Buckley called Bush's administration a failure, so now some guy over at POPULAR MECHANICS is the "Go To" guy for Bushies. Not bad, since you can learn to lay carpet and read about bunker busters.