How's it going in Iraq? Let's ask the Iraqis

[jaxmike]

http://journals.aol.com/tepoorten9/T...ld/entries/762
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_03.php#009772

The poll surveyed 2,878 Iraqi's and was published in the Iraqi newspaper Al-Sabah Al-Jadeed.

Do you support the severe measures the Iraqi Government is taking against terrorist acts in Iraq?

93.56% = Yes
6.44% = No

How do you think Arabic satellite news companies are covering Iraqi news?

Neutral = 16.75%
Not Neutral = 7.25%
Negatively Biased = 76%

What is your opinion of U.N. Resolution 1546?

It achieves the ambitions of Iraqis for sovereignty = 73.12%
It satisfies ambition of certain Iraqi groups = 12.90%
It helps legitimise the American occupation = 13.98%

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you support the severe measures the Iraqi Government is taking against terrorist acts in Iraq?

93.56% = Yes
6.44% = No

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow 94%. These people are used to a very tyranical regime. never in their history have they been able to express there opinions freely. The US forces are shooting and arresting all sorts of people, with justification I assume. I am not saying the majority should be no, but 94% is a pretty good indication people are not expressing their true opinions.

[jaxmike]

I love how people take good news and try to make it bad.

[Chris Alger]

The source of your poll is an Iraqi newspaper, Al-Sabah Al-Jadeed, owned by a U.S. corporation under Pentagon contract whose editor resigned last May protesting U.S. government interference with reporting. All of which was ignored by your source, the rightwing site Powerline, who's "translation" excludes all mention of methodology, by itself an unprofessional lack of disclosure. According to the former editor, U.S. occupation forces "are trying to control us. We are being suffocated." It's no surprise that the paper was "seen by many Iraqis as the mouthpiece of the occupation authority." Islam Online

IslamOnline's article based on its interview with the muzzled editor continues:<ul type="square">Al-Sabah, along with Al-Iraqiya television and a number of radio stations, are run by Harris Corp., a Florida-based firm, through a 96-million-dollar Pentagon contract.

"A U.S. company called SAIC, which had funding from the Pentagon, was in charge of the oversight of this [Al-Sabah] newspaper," he said.

"But then SAIC was replaced by Harris Corporation, who had no experience with the media to oversee us," Zaher complained.

"Harris Corporation told us we could not be independent, due to [Coalition Provisional Authority] CPA Order 66, which stated that Al-Sabah had to be included in a new media group. They did this without our knowing about it, and we refused".

He said this action would have linked the newspaper to Harris Corporation and the Pentagon for the next two years and allow Pentagon to run it.

They did not want the paper to publish the names of U.S. soldiers who had been killed in Iraq, Zayer recalled, adding that a U.S. general came to their offices to talk to his staff and pressure them.

The Iraqi journalist accused Harris of interfering in the paper's workings, including trying to stop some of its advertising and speaking to reporters about articles.

Among the ads Harris tried to prevent was one from a new political organization, the Iraqi Republican Group, criticizing the "grieves of occupation" and appealed to Iraqi elite to rally "to preserve our nation from destruction."

They were told the ad was "too political".[/list]

[bholdr]

nh, chris.

[TransientR]

Bravo Chris!

Jaxmike caught falling for blatant right wing/administration propaganda again.

Frank

[smudgex68]

[ QUOTE ]
Jaxmike caught falling for blatant right wing/administration propaganda again.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are we sure he just isn't playing with us and demonstrating a fine sense of irony?

[Dead]

Irony is completely lost on jaxmike.

[betgo]

The 6% who say no are all the ones who are shooting at our freedom forces.

[Utah]

Okay, so your counter to the results of this study are:

1) Take an article from Islam Online - a clearly anti occupation and anti Bush website
2) Quote a guy who didnt like his job and quit
3) Take issue with Powerline for not quoting the method (not their job since they didnt do the study)

Wow. That is as about a weak an attack as one can mount. Nowhere do you directly attack the veracity of the study.

Lets say that the editor was correct and lets pretend that Islamonline isnt biased. All the editor really said is that the U.S. was heavy handed in its management. I didnt see him say anything about the U.S. making up facts. So even if we were to believe the editor we still have no reason to doubt the study.

It is quite possible that the study was flawed. However, you make zero case for that position.