www.heritage.org | Heritage research | Policy Blog | PolicyWire Archive March 13, 2006
Poll Too Biased To Show Troops' Views
Port Security and Port Sales: An Action Plan for Congress
   



Subscribe today
to hear events and radio shows at home or on the go.


Order NOW!

Getting America Right: The True Conservative Values our Nation Needs Today




What if the Answers Don't Add Up? Transparency and Government Data
Tuesday, March 14, 2006, 2:00 p.m. |
Details
Making One Out of Many: A Discussion on the Patriotic Assimilation of Immigrants
Thurs., March 16, 2006, 12:00 noon |
Details
Full event schedule

Over 70 percent of troops say it's time to withdraw from Iraq, according to a recent Zogby poll extensively covered in the mainstream media.

Economist and Air Force veteran Tim Kane takes a closer look at the poll and finds major problems. Zogby's poll, he writes, was "like a multiple-choice test with no right answers." For example, troops could choose that they believed the U.S. should stay in Iraq "indefinitely" or "withdraw" at several different dates. What about troops who think the U.S. should stay for one year, five years, or however long? Sorry, that's not one of the choices.

According to Kane, the poll included "questions aplenty on napalm, interrogation, and doubling the number of bombing missions." How many questions did Zogby ask about the state of the U.S. mission, morale, progress in tracking down terrorists, and prospects for democracy and economic growth? None.

So is the Zogby poll "(a) biased, (b) dishonest, or (c) all of the above?" Don't like those choices? Sorry, that's all they gave us.


Read Poll Too Biased To Show Troops' Views by Tim Kane, Ph.D.

The sale of a British-based company that controls cargo handling operations at a number of U.S. port facilities to Dubai Ports World, a government-owned company in the United Arab Emirates, has raised many concerns. While the deal has since been modified—Dubai Ports World has agreed to transfer all of its U.S. operations to a domestic firm—a review of the facts suggests that there were no apparent security issues. Still, concerns over the deal reflect the importance of ensuring that the U.S. government is looking after Americans’ safety and security. Congress should take this opportunity to amend current laws to strengthen oversight of foreign-owned critical maritime infrastructure.


For more on the authors:

India and Pakistan: On the Heels of President Bush’s Visit
by The Honorable R. Nicholas Burns
RSC Budget Provides Serious Blueprint for Spending Restraint by Brian Riedl
Port Security and Foreign-Owned Maritime Infrastructure
by James Carafano
Nuclear Diplomacy: Keep the Pressure on Iran
by James Phillips and Brett Schaefer
A Lesson in Data and Analysis for the New York Times
by Michael New
More recent research
Forum: Rethinking the first freedom
by Grace Smith
Vouchers Offer Hope to Failing U.S. Students
by Dan Lips
Port of Gall
by Edwin Feulner
Russia's back
by Helle Dale
Conyers' Ethics Troubles Explode
by Michael Franc
Getting America Right
by Rebecca Hagelin
Hugo Chavez, imperialist
by Stephen Johnson
Chen Lets Off Steam
by John Tkacik
America needs a better policy on immigration
by Edwin Feulner
More recent commentary
 
The generous support of Heritage members is helping to build a better America. Find out how you can help.
214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington DC 20002
ph 202.546.4400 | fax 202.546.8328
info@heritage.org
You are subscribed as %%emailaddr_%%. You subscribed on %%timeformat DateJoined "%m/%d/%y"%%.
If at any time you wish to unsubscribe, you may do so here.