Civil Discourse with Clarence Page Re: Zogby “poll” of Troops in Iraq

Clarence Page is a nationally syndicated columnist and TV commentator, member of the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, liberal, whom I personally respect and enjoy listening to for well-presented opinions whether I agree or not with all.

Clarence Page published a column Monday that led to the below correspondence. Neither of us marshaled all our arguments, for sure, as this is an informal give-and-take.

You read. You decide.

In asking for permission to post this, I offered the columnist the last word.

It's very important to responsible Americans who truly care about America, whatever their politics, that we have more civil discourse.

I sincerely appreciate and thank Clarence Page for this civil discourse, and his courtesy to a stranger. That's an American! That builds the America we all care about.

3/6/06 10:36 AM PST, From KESLER
Mr. Page:
I realize you probably wrote your column a few days ago, but you still chose to rely on a survey that is so methodologically unacceptable -- even on its face -- to professional polling and journalistic standards and so substantively in error, especially when a quick internet search would have revealed that.

You might refer to this link, from me, for example, and follow its links. www.democracy-project.com/archives/002396.html
Hopefully you are more interested in truth, and will correct the misimpression in a future column.

3/6/06 7:56PM PST From PAGE
As I wrote, certain people distort what Zogby's polls actually said in order to obscure truths they don't want to face.
Funny how some of the same people who try to discredit Zogby now have been praising him for years when his polling results favored conservatives.
-- CP

3/6/06 8:08PM PST From KESLER
Mr. Page:

I appreciate your sympathies in what you wrote in your syndicated Chicago Tribune column, but they've gotten the best of your judgment.

Nothing is distorted by me about Zogby's poll. I've read the questions and all the info he's released, and I and a major liberal pollster both concluded that his methodology is grossly inadequate. In addition, those of us with military and combat training and experience, including in Iraq, also find many errors of military fact. Lastly, the released demographics from Zogby indicate questioning of real-echelon support troops.

Sorry, Clarence, on this one it's entirely you buying a bridge, and because you want to.

3/6/06 8:20PM PST From PAGE
Okay. Educate me. What do you think is inadequate about his methodology?
CP

3/6/06 8:39PM PST From KESLER
Thank you for listening.
I sent you a link to one of my posts this morning, which had links which you can follow.
But, to sum:
1. Many of the questions did not make military sense, and thus the answers. For example, his question which combined white phosphorous with napalm, the first the common smoke-out grenade carried by almost all combat troops, the second dropped from planes and not used in Iraq. See my post http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/002398.html

2. His anti_Iraq war client-conduit screened and adjusted the questions, which is unacceptable survey methodology. As is not revealing his methodology for peer review. What he did convey to a professional Democrat pollster, Mystery Pollster http://www.mysterypollster.com was found to be "not scientific" and to be taken with "big grains of salt."

3. His sample was not representative. For example he says that 25% of his sample was female. That is a higher % than in any service except the Air Force reserves. Similarly he has racial composition as 15% Other, again far higher than our forces, after Caucasian, Black and Asian are subtracted. See http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/poprep2003/
Thus, at best, his sample was just rear-echelon, and even then unrepresentative.

4. His questioners were not professional nor supervised, but local Iraqis recruited for a small payment to seek out whomever would answer their questions, and could only have approached a relative few and unrepresentative within rear bases.

5. His published results contradict virtually every independent (not embedded) journalist and politician visitor, as well as almost every milblog.

I can go into long detail on each of these, and much more, if you wish.

The point isn't whether any on the Right liked any of his prior polls, or from the Left. The issue is your standards as a professional journalist. I believe you to be a fair man, which is why I wrote you. Your conclusion in your column may be correct, or not, as history will tell, but didn't benefit from being argued from this poll.

3/6/06 9:39PM PST From PAGE
Thanks for sending some more info.
I'll have to take a closer look at this tomorrow when I have more time, but I can see right away that at least part of your objection is to the news release, not the poll itself.
Zogby has had extensive experience polling in the Arab world as well as the US and used the same Beirut-based subcontractor that he's used in the past. It's my understanding that the college, not the funder, reviewed the questions. Since the wording of questions are crucial in any polling, I tried to report that wording as accurately as possible and let the readers decide.
I can't comment on why Zogby oversampled women, since I was not concerned with that part of the survey in my column. The usual reason for oversampling is to get a more reliable cross-section of views for a minority group (like women in the military,) but that's just a guess. I'll have to ask the Zogby folks about that.
Finally, having talked to a few imbedded journalists and military personnel experts like Charles Moskos of Northwestern, I disagree that the poll results stray from what others have found. As I wrote, I think a lot of people on the right and left spontaneously misinterpreted the poll as saying most of our troops want to leave Iraq right away. I think their actual responses were more focused on what is the most sensible policy, not how weary they are of combat. With the Pentagon already talking about drawing down troops this year, it's not hard to understand why most troops, especially reservists and National Guardsmen, would say that sounds about right to them.
CP

3/6/06 9:46PM PST From KESLER
That well may be so. My current conversations are more with Marines and Special Ops types than with Army. -- And, I do remember the attitudes among us in Vietnam in 1969-70 when I served there in the Marines, and when I returned in 1971. However, the professional military today are far more disciplined and focused than we were.

Nonetheless, the Zogby survey is a creation and not a reputable poll. If it offers any insights, it does not come from reliable methodology nor from questions which are clear, and many of the reported answers are contradictory.

You can still make your arguments, but they just shouldn't rest upon this poll.

Have a good night, and tomorrow.

3/7/06 6:19 AM PST From PAGE
Thanks. Again, I salute your service. While you were in 'Nam, I was mostly in Ft. Lewis, Washington, and southern Germany with an Army artillery unit, which may be why I've got a distinct ringing in my ears these days.
You're correct to caution against resting too much in any single poll, but since this poll was conducted precisely because nobody else has polled the troops on what they think, as Don Rumsfeld might say you go with the poll you have, not the poll you wish you had.
Semper fi,
CP

3/7/06 6:25AM PST From KESLER
Good chuckle.
However, inappropriate, in itself and as all analogies are.
Most simply, when all other indicators -- including for ex. the comparatively very few refusals of reservists to be called up, a tiny fraction compared even to the small fraction of resistors during the VN war -- are not confirming of demoralization or of negativity toward the mission or of desire to relatively quickly withdraw if job not finished, the poll -- itself obviously non-representative sample and suspect in its poorly crafted questions and the results contradictions -- cannot be relied upon at all.

It may be all you have to "go to war" against the policy or performance, but it is an extremely poor force!

3/8/06 7:56 PM PST From PAGE
Thank you. I have nothing to add at this time. My column speaks for itself. Draw your own conclusions.
Peace,
CP