"In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?"

Should be reworded to be:

"Do you think the United States should have invaded Iraq?"

I think the term "developments" could be miscontstrued to mean the fact that the war is not going well, i.e. casualties.  Instead of the fact that no WMD's were found.

I'd also like to know how many people think that what is going on in Iraq is a civil war that we are caught in and if the responders to the poll think our presence there is making things worse (as John Murtha says) or helping.

I think this is great stuff.  It will really help the blogosphere gain greater legitimacy (not that it needed it in any of the minds here) from sources outside the blogosphere, not suggesting that the periphery needs to justification from the center.  I will work on some possible polling questions for spying and post them in this section later.

1) this is a push question if it only asks whether
 "the United States made a mistake". Asking it that way, i think, biases responednts towards a "yes" answer.
Better would be:
1. (All): "Next, we'd like to ask you some questions about Iraq. First: In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States was correct or mistaken in sending troops to Iraq?"

    * 2. (If "DID NOT MAKE A MISTAKE"): Why do you think it was a correct decesion to send troops to Iraq? (can answer "yes" to multiple reasons). Because Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction; because Saddam Hussein had connections with Al-Qaeda; Because it will bring democracy to Iraq; Because it will bring democracy to the Middle East; Other reason or reasons

    * 3. (All): Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq, or do you think the U.S. should begin to bring its troops home?
[as soon as possible, is again, biasing. one could also not want immediate withdrawl but withdrawl soon, and there wouldn't be a suitable choice. thus, the way the question was phrased, it is a false dichotomy].
    * 4a. (If "BRING TROOPS HOME"): "Should the U.S. remove all troops from Iraq immediately, or should the withdrawal of troops be gradual over the next year or two?"
[great question!]

    * 4b. (If "KEEP TROOPS IN IRAQ"): "Should the US set a timetable for the withdrawal of troops, or not?
[4b is a push poll-type question, strongly biasing the responder towards a "yes" response]

-----
Investigation and Impeachment Questions (Five questions)

    * 1. (All): Next, we would like to ask you some questions on possible investigations of President Bush. First, do you think Congress should conduct an investigation into President Bush's involvement with domestic spying?
[good question]

    * 2. (If "conduct an investigation"): "Which of the following possible outcomes of an investigation into President Bush's involvement in domestic spying would you most like to see happen? Bush is impeached and removed from office. Bush resigns from office. Bush is censured by Congress, and remains in office. Bush remains in office and Congress takes no action against him."
[again, good question]

    * 3. (All): Do you think Congress should conduct an investigation into President Bush's involvement with faulty claims concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
[it may be preferable to add a qualifier here like  "involvewment with allegedly faulty..."

    * 4. (If "conduct an investigation"): "Which of the following possible outcomes of an investigation into President Bush's involvement in faulty claims concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq would you most like to see happen? Bush is impeached and removed from office. Bush resigns from office. Bush is censured by Congress, and remains in office. Bush remains in office and Congress takes no action against him."

    * 5. (All) "Do you think the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives should begin holding hearings to determine whether or not to impeach President Bush, or don't you think it's necessary?"
[nice question]

I hope this was helpful!

Alright. So I'm not really a political animal, I vote, and I'm kind of independent, I really like it when A country moves forward in the right direction, but all in all I'm not some paid political consultant or evangelist for any real cause other than to try to bring back the America I loved when I was a kid, so that my kids can grow up strong and true.

Now, having said this - a big component of my history was online communities, electric community research. I found time and again that as communities evolved (and by the way, this is what Joe Trippi still misses today in his work, despite all his good work on WAVE SYSTEMS at RAGING BULL) - is that democracy always arises from these online systems.

Guys like Chris push the envelope forward. Google "Electric Communities" or my alter-handle "Oracle Layza" sometime and you can read more. Its really fascinating.

Three cheers for MyDD ! Three cheers for Chris!
And Jerome, you're a mud sucking donkey.

I get to say that because he's not here.
:-)

As Peter Daou pointed out in his "triangle" post last September, blogs will not be able to push a story into the traditional news media unless they have the support of Democratic officials and candidates.

Luckily, this poll dovetails with a lot of great yeoman's work being done by other parts of the blogosphere, on highlighting and supporting Iraq vets who are coming home to run for Congress.  See, for example, Air America Radio, the ActBlue Fighting Dems fundraising page, and kos's weekly Fighting Dems series.

Before the poll gets underway, it's important to get the support of these Democratic candidates, as well as key elected Democrats, like John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, and Russ Feingold.  A commitment from even a handful of these to talk about the poll in the days following its release is as necessary to the poll's ultimate success as any fundraising or poll-drafting efforts.

Moreover, it wouldn't hurt to bring the progressive magazine circuit, including the Nation, Mother Jones, and The American Prospect, online in this effort.

Bush:  

#1 might be more direct:  do you believe the President has the authority to order wiretaps on Americans?  (Follow-on w/2a & b)

#3 add new #3:  do you believe the American people were told the truth about our reasons for going to war in Iraq?  (Follow-on by renumbering #s 3 - 5).

I agree with you about trying to get a read on how people view the Democrats (and/or Congress in general).  Open-ended questions are better than boxed-in.  

Here are my comments:

Iraq questions:

2. add "Because Saddam Hussein brutalized his people" to the list of reasons. Also, in this question I'd be inclined (so as not to antagonize respondents) to say "Why do you think it was right to send troops to Iraq?"

3. Questions like this have burned us before because the median position in America seems to be "bring the troops home, but not precipitately." If one of your options is "bring the troops home as soon as possible" you will find people who want to bring the troops home choosing the "keep troops" option.

Impeachment/investigation questions:

These are terrific. I would just change #1 and #2 to read "warrantless domestic spying." That makes it clearer to those respondents who may be coming up with answers on the spot exactly why the spying might be impeachable.

Other questions:

Domestic spying questions will be hard to ask because (as Bush is demonstrating) the subject is slippery. Somehow you have to work the fact that Bush is bypassing the FISA court into the question -- otherwise people will think like Bush: "We may need to spy to catch terrorists." But if you find a way to put the FISA court point in there, the question will be long and/or sound like push polling.

I would also love to see favorable/unfavorable ratings for Democrats, but we have to be aware what the results will be. The only clear candidates with major national name recognition are Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Their numbers will be better than candidates like Feingold/Clark/Warner who are more popular among those familiar with them.

Thanks again for your efforts.

Secondly, you will have to find as neutral and 'mainstream' a polling organization as possible so that the mainstream media will trust the results.

1.  (All) Next, we would like to ask you some questions about your feelings regarding eveasdropping and civil liberties.  Do you believe that the President is justified in ordering electronic eavesdropping within the United States without obtaining a court order?

2.  (If "NO") Would you support legislation that would allow the President to order electronic eavesdropping within the US without a court order?

3.  (All) Please rate your perception of the vulnerability of the United States to terrorist attacks out of a scale of ten, one being not very vulnerable and ten being very vulnerable

4.  (All) Do you believe it is more important that the federal government gaurantee your protection from unreasonable searches, including electronic eavesdropping or that the government do everything in its power to investigate potential terrorists?

In any case kudos. I don't have the qualifications of previous posters to come up with the best wording.

However, I do think that a lot of people who respond to questions about the Iraq War are wording their answers so that they do not seem to be unsupportive of our troops. The Viet Nam wound about that still runs deep.

So I would like to see any questions along that line worded so that they can respond to whether we should be there and when we should leave in a way that removes their fear of harming troop morale.

I also think that there should be something asked to determine if: 1) They or any immediate family member has served in the military. 2) And if anyone they know is serving there or not. I think that can make a difference in how they answer.

Regarding impeachment there is a similar problem. Too many people seem to fear impeaching Bush would result in a President Cheney. Question should be asked in a manner that either: 1)Determines if that is a factor in the answer; 2)Allows them to set aside that issue.

In order to best evaluate the person's responses I would also suggest there is some sort of questioning that would determine their levels of:
News knowledge: Perhaps a specific question or two that would determine if they even pay attention to current events. (Few people are going to out and out admit that they don't.)

And information as to where they obtain their news. Not just tv vs newspaper vs internet. But Bill O'Reilly and Drudge or Brian Williams and Time or Keith Olbermann and Air America type of breakdown.

Civics knowledge: Questions to determine their comprehension of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, FISA etc. I think of it as a way to see if they are just responding based on what their favorite 'talking head' has told them, or if they have done any thinking on the issues themselves.

Thanks for the opportunity to weigh in!

I believe either a choice should be added, "Depends on investigation's findings", or "I do not have a pre-desired outcome".

OR, the questions could just cut to the chase: "If the investigation reveals the President knowingly broke the law/knowingly manipulated intelligience data, what do you believe should be the consequence?"

Investigation and Impeachment Questions

1. (All): Next, we would like to ask you some questions on possible investigations of President Bush. First, should Congress conduct an investigation into President Bush's policy of allegedly illegal domestic spying on American citizens without a warrant?
   
2. (If "conduct an investigation"): "Which of the following possible outcomes of an investigation into President Bush's policy of allegedly illegal domestic spying would you most like to see happen? Bush is impeached and removed from office. Bush resigns from office. Bush is censured by Congress, and remains in office. Bush remains in office and Congress takes no action against him."
   

#2: reword "because Saddam Hussein had connections with Al-Qaeda" to "because Saddam Hussein had connections with terrorist organizations" - why? 'Cause Bush said we were waging war on terrorism, not just on Al-Qaeda.

Also add options for:

"because Saddam Hussein violated the human rights of his citizens"

"because we need the oil" (so many people still claim that's the real reason, so might as well put it in there)

"because it is a matter of national security" (if I were to "push-word" it, I would say, "because it is better to confront and defeat terrorists 'over there' instead of fight them 'over here'" - this plays to Bush's doctrine of pre-emption, and since it would be at the top of my personal list, I think it needs to be there :-)

Add something to 4b or add a 4c something about whether we should maintain an indefinate military presence in Iraq. Or maybe add that to the list of reasons back in #2.

I'm happy that you've drafted questions based on ones that were asked previously.  This should allow you to compare results on these questions with results when they were asked last.  To the extent possible, you should use the exact language - that way there's no question about whether the wording is what's giving the differnce in results rather than change in opinion.

Likewise, in planning for the future of the poll, I would recommend reserving a portion of the survey for questions that can be used repeatedly over time.  So, for those questions that no one's asked, this initial survey can start the series.  This is clearly less sexy than impeachment and Iraq, etc., but I would say that in 5-10 years, if you've got your permanent questions in the survey, the series of results that's been built up on the repeated questions will be most valuable.  

Don't get me wrong - a slice of a survey each year should be given to the more topical issues of the day.  It's just that only a portion of the survey should be devoted to new or revolving questions, and a fair share of them should be repeated each time in order to make this a useful tool for gauging public opinions on the topics we care about.  

Do you think that the US should establish permanent military bases in Iraq?

This is the elephant in the room that nobody is talking about, and it is most timely.

Remember all the arguments about polls in 2004? Granted, the GOP types will denigrate your polling, but they will denigrate anything that shows them in a bad light.

Others have alluded to this, but IMHO the two keys are:

1. That the polling is as scientific and objective as possible. (To which you will rightly respond, "duh." :-) But some will have concerns about it.

2. That the left blogsphere pitches in and publicizes the results so that they leak into the SCLM. Easier said than done, but count me in for that effort.

As a fundamentalist Christian, Bush believes all Muslims go to Hell when they die.  Do you think this was a factor when he ordered intelligence to be manipulated to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq?

   3.  Rate your concern about the United States being attacked by terrorists on a scale of one to ten, with ten being very concerned and one being not at all concerned

   4.  I am going to read you two statements.  Plese tell me which statement more closely reflects your views:  

(these would be rotated in the actual poll)

The government should do everything in its power to protect America from terrorist attacks, even things infringe on American's civil liberties.

Terrorists are not enough of a threat to America to justify the government forfieting our privacy and freedom.

5.   I am going to read you two statements.  Plese tell me which statement more closely reflects your views:  

(these would be rotated in the actual poll)

President Bush's program of evesdropping on the telephone conversations and emails of US citizens without a warrant shows he is a strong leader who is serious about protecting American's safety.

President Bush's program of evesdropping on the telephone conversations and emails of US citizens without a warrant is excessively intrusive response and shows he is overly fearful of terrorists.

Great work Chris.

1. Agree with the above comments about the media, have to be ready to push it from mydd, lets get you guys on TV!  Also through other interest groups and electeds.

2. I'd leave it to these questions and forget Pres candidates for now.

Additionally, Pres polling is being done by many firms and news outlets, I see our role as filling in gaps they are missing.

Don't know how to get that into a survery question, but I hope you get my point.

suggested replacement:
1. (All): "Next, we'd like to ask you about your feelings on Iraq. First: In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you feel the United States made a mistake in keeping our troops in Iraq, or not?"

2. (If "DID NOT MAKE A MISTAKE"): Why do you think it was not a mistake to send troops to Iraq? (can answer "yes" to multiple reasons). Because Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction; because Saddam Hussein had connections with Al-Qaeda; Because it will bring democracy to Iraq; Because it will bring democracy to the Middle East; Other reason or reasons

suggested replacement:
2. (If "DID NOT MAKE A MISTAKE"): Why do you feel it was not a mistake to send troops to Iraq? (can answer "yes" to multiple reasons). Because Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction; because Saddam Hussein had connections with Al-Qaeda; Because it will bring democracy to Iraq; Because it will bring democracy to the Middle East; Other reason or reasons.

3. (All): Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?

suggested replacement:
3. (All): Do you feel the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq, or do you feel the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?

4. (If "conduct an investigation"): "Which of the following possible outcomes of an investigation into President Bush's involvement in faulty claims concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq would you most like to see happen? Bush is impeached and removed from office. Bush resigns from office. Bush is censured by Congress, and remains in office. Bush remains in office and Congress takes no action against him."

suggested replacement:
4. (If "conduct an investigation"): "Which of the following outcomes of an investigation into President Bush's involvement in faulty claims concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq would you most like to see happen? Bush is impeached and removed from office. Bush resigns from office. Bush is censured by Congress, and remains in office. Bush remains in office and Congress takes no action against him."

On # 4 I would also ask pretty much the same thing about Cheney.  And I nixed possible from possible outcomes.  It seemed a little too wordy.

5. (All) "Do you think the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives should begin holding hearings to determine whether or not to impeach President Bush, or don't you think it's necessary?"

suggested replacement:
5. (All) "Do you feel the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives should begin holding hearings to determine whether or not to impeach President Bush?"

On # 5 I removed the "Or do you think it's necessary.  Let them just deal with the question.  And the answer should be yes or no.

On all of them I replaced think with feel.  I'm sure you hvae your reasons for using "think".  But more people would be comfortable sharing their fellings than their thoughts.  And I believe you'd get a higher percentage of honest answers.

Thanks for taking the initiatice on this.

I would also add the following to #3.

Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq "without a timetable for withdrawal", or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?

I also agree with the comments that added granularity in the responses, such as use of "strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree" should assist with the analysis of the results.

I disagree with the "neutral" language that RepTroll is proposing, or at least most of it.

And I also agree with a couple of comments that the  "what outcome would you like to see" questions are a bit leading.  There needs to be a phrase "assuming investigations find wrongdoing" in there...

Also, I'd guess that people wouldn't really be totally honest with this. If they think it's a mistake now, they'll probably say they always thought it was a mistake. People don't like to admit error.

Should the people that leaked the existance of the secret NSA domestic spying program to the press be tried for treason?

Should the people that leak the identity of undercover CIA agents to the press be tried for treason?

See what I'm getting at?  W is calling this dom. spying leak treasonous, but it seems no different that telling Novak that Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent.

Others could probably fix the wording or unite the questions better than I.

Do you believe that it is currently acceptable for the federal government to be running budget deficits?

If no: Would you prefer to see the government reduce deficit spending by cutting social and environmental programs or by raising taxes?

For future use, if the annual budget is in surplus:

The federal budget for last year was in surplus.  Do you favor using this surplus money to:
   Increase government programs
   Pay down interest charges on previous govt debts
   Fund tax cuts

As with my previous suggestions above, others can/should improve wording.  Maybe this is too push-y.

* 1. (All): "Next, we'd like to ask you some questions about Iraq. First: In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States was correct or made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq?"

In the original question you have "made a mistake", negative, "or not", neutral.  This doesn't give a positive frame to the people who support the war, which colors it a bit.  The rewording gives you "correct", positive, and "made a mistake", negative.  You can rotate the two if desired.

* 2. (If "WAS CORRECT"): Why do you think it was correct to send troops to Iraq? (can answer "yes" to multiple reasons). Because Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction; because Saddam Hussein had connections with Al-Qaeda; Because it will bring democracy to Iraq; Because it will bring democracy to the Middle East; Other reason or reasons.

I agree that this is an excellent question that's been needed to be asked for quite some time.  No changes.

I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with #3.  Keep troops there or bring them home as soon as possible?  Unless someone's against any sort of withdrawal at all, no one's going to say keep them there.  It's all in the definition of "as soon as possible."  I think you really just wanted it to set up #4.  They would be better asked as follows:

* 3. What should be done with regards to our troop situation in Iraq?  Should we bring them home immediately, gradually withdraw them over one or two years, or not withdraw them for at least two years?

I struggled with the third choice but that's the best I can come up with for now.  It may need more work.

* 4. Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for withdrawal of our troops in Iraq?

Just ask it outright, no need to preface it.  "Should or should not" is a little more neutral than tacking "or not" on at the end, but it's a more minor point than in #1.  I suppose you can filter out those who said "withdraw immediately".

Investigation and Impeachment Questions (Five questions)

* 1. (All): Next, we would like to ask you some questions on possible investigations of President Bush. First, do you think Congress should or should not conduct an investigation into President Bush's involvement with obtaining wiretaps without a warrant?

The phrase "domestic spying" will color the results, though this is hard to avoid.  "Wiretaps without a warrant" is slightly too benign, but is the closest to neutral you're going to get.  Anything that mentions "illegal" or "possibly illegal" will really skew it, even though that's exactly what it is.

* 2. (If "conduct an investigation"): "If it is determined that President Bush broke the law when obtaining the wiretaps without warrants, which of the following outcomes would you most like to see happen? Bush is impeached and removed from office. Bush resigns from office. Bush is censured by Congress, and remains in office. Bush remains in office and Congress takes no action against him."

Preface this with if it's found to be illegal, since otherwise you're asking about punitive actions out of nowhere and will just get the people who think he's guilty now.  This is still a bit of a push since you have three negative outcomes and one neutral.  This would have to be done at the end so as to not color the rest of the poll.

* 3. (All): Do you think Congress should or should not conduct an investigation into President Bush's involvement with claims concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Even though we know it's definitively true, not everyone accepts "faulty" sadly, so that's a push.  "Allegedly faulty" concedes too much, it just makes me bristle.  So cut it out altogether and let it be colored by people's own conception of how the claims are.  That's how the real public opinion would work out anyway.

* 4. (If "conduct an investigation"): "If it is determined that President Bush exaggerated the claims concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which of the following possible outcomes would you most like to see happen? Bush is impeached and removed from office. Bush resigns from office. Bush is censured by Congress, and remains in office. Bush remains in office and Congress takes no action against him."

I don't know if this one is salvageable.  Did the same thing as in #2, but you need to choose what the findings are.  Lied?  Exaggerated?  Misled?  Either way I don't think the results would be useful because it's asking people to concede things some of them never will in real life.  Some will say "yeah, he should be impeached if he misled us" but never accept that he misled us.  The legality of the wiretaps can be found more definitively.

#5 is again asking about punishment sans any pretense.  You can ask it if you want, but you'll only get a yes out of people who already think he's guilty, not people who could be persuaded he is with the results of an investigation.

What's the objective of the poll?

And the other thing I've wondered about is the military vote in the 2004 election. I know that my county's, Broward County's, military vote went to Kerry. I've looked everywhere for the results of other counties and states.

I even emailed John Zogby. He actually wrote me back and said he didn't think the results could be found.

"The Bush Administration says that Iran's nuclear program is a potential threat to the United States. Should the United States launch a pre-emptive attack against Iran's nuclear facilities?"

i am only tangentially familiar with polling methodology as my concentration has always been in experimental design, but i'll offer one perspective.

asking demographic questions has been demonstrated repeatedly to bias results [see claude steele's brilliant work on "stereotype threat"].

the gist of it, is that when asked about specific personal characteristics people consider those more significantly in answering questions than if they weren't asked any questions.

for instance, if you give a half black and half white group the GRE english exam (a difficult test for anyone), and you give the control group no personal questions, and the test group racial questions, the control group will do the same across gender lines and their will be a statically significant difference in the group where racial issues were discussed.
i suspect similarly that if you ask demographic data at the beginning it will increase the partisanship of results.

is it common practice to but that data at the end?  the problem there is a premature aborting of the interview where you wouldn't have party ID, etc.

also significant is the ordering of the questions.

for instance, if you conduct the experiment described above with asian women and the math GRE, you get even more fascinating results. when you ask gender first and race second, they begin the test thinking about their race "asian" rather than gender "woman". this leads to positive math stereotypes and better than average results. switch the order (race then gender) and they begin considering woman, and do worse than average. so if the personal characteristics go first, order is important, perhaps rotation is necessary. the problem is that increasing rotation increases variables and decreases the n for any particular  choice set, thus necessitating more responses.  

Here are a set of questions from Project on International Policy Alternatives survey of Oct 12-18, 2004.  They include a well-worded question about the decision to invade, a good question about the impact of troops there today, and four questions that illuminate people's belief in Bush Administration propaganda.

Q7. Do you think the US made the right decision or the wrong decision in going to war against Iraq?

Q7b: Do you think the US military presence in Iraq is currently:
(A) A stabilizing force
(B) Provoking more conflict than it is preventing

Q13. Is it your belief that, just before the war, Iraq:
(A) Had actual weapons of mass destruction
(B) Had no weapons of mass destruction but had a major program for developing them
(C) Had some limited activities that could be used to help develop weapons of mass destruction, but not an active program
(D) Did not have any activities related to weapons of mass destruction

Q14. Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaeda terrorist organization?
(A) US has
(B) US has not

Q15. Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do you think:
(A) The majority of people favor the US having gone to war
(B) The majority of people oppose the US having gone to war
(C) Views are evenly balanced

Q16. Please select what you think is the best description of the relationship between the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein and the terrorist group al-Qaeda.
(A) There was no connection at all
(B) A few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials but Iraq did not provide substantial support to al-Qaeda
(C) Iraq gave substantial support to al-Qaeda, but was not involved in the September 11th attacks
(D) Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the September 11th attacks

Participants in the IMPEACH project will be doing our best to skew your results!

I believe:

1. We should withdraw from Iraq mostly, but will need to leave some troops there for support for as long as Iraq wants them, which could be a long time.
   
2. We need a timetable for withdrawal
   
3. Withdrawal should be gradual but rapid

Re By Brew's comment. It seems likely that framing the story as a conflict of the values of security vs. freedom is fundamentally a mistake.

1. For one, the terms are overly abstract and depend on how the respondent will project their imagination into the question. Some will imagine "security" as exigent (e.g. a man with a gun next to their head) and "freedom" as a luxury (e.g. the freedom to publish bestial images on library internets). Others will flip the equation in a way that reveals freedom as necessity (e.g. free press) and security as luxury (e.g. invading Iraq).

2. Indeed, there are vigorous arguments that Bush's activities have little improved security, e.g. reasons having nothing to do with security for invading Iraq as well as the (in)security consquences; the merely symbolic nature of Guantanamo; the inefficiency and unintended consequences of torture; the inefficiency of data mining; cronyism; succumbing to political pressures re homeland security spending and government regulations, and so on.

3. Framing the question as one of freedom or security only supports Bush's claim that his actions improve security. DD's poll questions about domestic eavesdropping or surveillance without a warrant ask the right question and demonstrate that there is a different way of talking entirely than to frame things as between freedom and security. Indeed, FISA protects both freedom and security. (Maybe there should be a question about executive power and checks and balances.)

*    Security v. Freedom is overly abstract
*    Bush's claims of security are bogus
*    Security and freedom need not be in conflict and is not necessarily the main issue with the NSA spying.

Thank you.

Christian