Centerfield

Tully,

I would have thought that you would be first in line to qualify the National Review as the CONSERVATIVE National Review. (Scold!) :}

As for the substance, I think Iraqi opinion is important to note, as is the more studied opinion of Powell, Biden, Hagel, et al. that we've heard recently. I think they're a much better source than Joe Lockhart.

I'm glad the Iraqis think things will work out for them.

However, Bush is running for President of the United States, not Iraq. All this stuff about helping Iraqis is besides the point. Since when do Republicans go in for foreign aid?

The problem with the Kerry campaign is that they're too politically correct to really make this an issue. They've taken an occasional swipe at Bush over this, but fundamentally, they're too "decent" to push the sort of xenophobic buttons that a Jesse Helms or Pat Buchanan would.

I couldn't agree more that what Iraqis think must be central to assessments of how things are going over there..

Since when do Republicans go in for foreign aid?

Since 9/11?

LOL. Consider me spanked, Erasmus. If I weren't lazy I'd have linked direct to the Iraqi polls instead of the Neo-con MotherShip. But Robbins does have some other good points, including the Iraqi desire for a less-than-secular government after years of Saddam's brutal Sunni secularity and repression of the Shia and Kurds. You know how little that piece of info pleases the neos and refelxive anti-Islamists!

This conversation is kind of funny. Is the fact that more Iraqi's are happy about the direction of their country, than Americans, a good thing for George W. Bush?

I am a little confused by your comments Rick, are you saying that Kerry should argue that it doesn't matter how things are going in Iraq, it's the homeland that counts? That would be pretty hard for him to do since his campaign seems to now be centered on the message of elect me because Bush has screwed up in Iraq. I think Kerry tried to focus on the domestic front and it got him nowhere.

Brian,

That definetely seems to be the message. Why did we go into Iraq without any hard evidence? Because of 9/11. Why are we nation bulding after we said we wouldn't? Because of 9/11. Why is the economy sputtering towards recovery? Because of 9/11.

This is one of the problems for Kerry. Bush can simply point to 9/11 as an excuse to do anything, and quite frankly, it works. Furthermore, it exemplifies the message that Bush is a leader who is reacting to the worst tragedy to ever happen on domestic soil. When Kerry disputes a policy direction of the administration he comes off as someone who is complaining for political purposes about an administration that has had to govern through some pretty bad stuff, mostly because he doesn't have the ability to articulate a consistent message. This could also be why the American people are showing that they are unhappy about the direction of the country, but in three more polls released by the Washington Post, New York Times, and Gallup this week, are choosing Bush over Kerry by a safe margin. Could it be that they simply don't blame Bush, or is it that Kerry is just that bad?

When we occupied Germany after WW II, we certainly wanted things to improve for Germans. Why? Not because we loved the Germans but because it would benefit the interests of the United States. The same goes for Iraq; the President of the US and Americans should evaluate our foreign policies based on how they affect the security and well-being of the U.S. That's not xenophobic, it's realistic. Unfortunately, liberals are appalled by a foreign policy aimed at advancing (gasp) American interests. So it's difficult for Kerry to really argue that we are in it for ourselves, that there's nothing altruistic in what we do, only enlightened self-interest.

In Iraq, it's nice that Iraqis have a positive view of their country and it's certainly better than things getting worse, but that doesn't NECESSARILY translate into a positive for the United States. They may, for example, think the country is getting better despite the United States and prefer a government that is anti-US. It all depends on what kind of government Iraq ultimately has and how the regional security situation works out. If Iraqis are happy, but the rest of the region hates the US and increases support for Al Quaida, how does that help the United States?

I'm not arguing that Kerry should be trying to ignore Iraq. I'm just suggesting that if Kerry wants to be President, he ought to demagogue a bit.

Certainly, Bush and Cheney are pushing nationalist buttons and making use of 9/11, as if somehow being attacked is an accomplishment!

Rick,

Point taken...

Gee, I wonder which Iraqis were eager to talk to these pollsters. Do you suppose anyone from the International Republican Institute (an impartial-sounding organization if ever there was one) was going door to door in Fallujah?

And while we're on the subject of the reliability of these polls, what exactly is this "Independent Institute for Administrative and Civil Society Studies" that supposedly took a poll confirming the IRI's findings. A Google search turned up only multiple conservative sites referring to this survey, and nothing more. No links, no background info... nothing. Anybody know who they are?

Ask and ye shall receive, Jeremy! I love full disclosure.

The International Republican Institute is indeed a terribly biased partisan group, with a board of directors featuring such well-known wingnuts as chairman Sen. John McCain, former US Sec'y of State Lawrence Eagleburger, former UN Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, and that infamous conservative extremist Sen. Chuck Hagel. (IOW, a centrist-right org, dedicated to building democractic infrastructure worldwide for over twenty years, that can fairly be compared to the better institutes associated with the centrist DLC faction of the Democrats.)

The Independent Institute for Administrative and Civil Society Studies is a new Iraqi policy institute based at the University of Baghdad, in the process of becoming a credentialed international affiliate of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies. The survey itself was funded by that also-raving uber-right organization The National Endowment for Democracy, whose board features such prominent extremists as Evan Bayh, Dick Gephardt, Vin Weber, Richard Holbrooke, Paul Sarbanes, etc. To be fair, they've also got Bill Frist. Can't win 'em all. (IOW, a centrist or even somewhat libertarian but certifiably bi-partisan group dedicated to nurturing democracy worldwide for over twenty years.)

For obvious reasons the IIACSS does not yet have a long track record to assess and is tough to track down on the web, as the UofB itself is still without web presence, but the surveys of the 2200-some Iraqi households were conducted by the Iraqis, not by US troops or the CIA. The sample sizes are good, the methodology is standard, and I found no reason in the study itself to doubt that it's as good a survey as any and not overtly rigged for political purposes.

Naturally, any bias you wish to assign to the sponsors of the study or the study itself is your own lookout and depends on your own perceptions. A PowerPoint of the study itself can be found on IRI's website for any who wish to review it.

Rick,
If GWB is marketing 9/11 as his only route to re-election, I hope the American People both right and left can see through it. and I think they do. Kerry has not given them (in at least half the population's opinion) of being able to have more security if he's elected.
One thing that JFK II can do is really push the consequences of the Bush admin's push against civil liberties or at least creating a "climate of silence against desent." K. can also preach about having his trust in the President fail because of the debaucle in Iraq; that way he can say he voted for the war without getting it constantly hit back in his face.

"One thing that JFK II can do is really push the consequences of the Bush admin's push against civil liberties or at least creating a "climate of silence against desent.""

Rachel,

It's a good idea, but unfortunately, I don't think enough people care. Let's face it, civil liberties it, to some extent, an abstract concept. It doesn't effect most people because most people don't expect to be caught up in the legal system. If it comes down to a (perceived)choice between civil liberties for terrorists and security for me and my family, most people are going to choose the latter.

Climate of silence against desent (dissent)?

I agree, all of those protestors in NY during the RNC that were lined up and shot need to be avenged. The bulging concentration camps needs to be liberated. The federally run news media needs to be opened up?

Silence against dissent my a$$, you need to read a little hisotry of eastern europe post-WWII in order to understand what silencing dissent is. Get some perspective.