Be concise. Your question will have the most impact if you make your point briefly. This also decreases the likelihood that you will get cut off before you are able to ask for a very specific answer.
Start your question with a fact for context. Not only is this an opportunity to ask a question, but it can be an educational moment for the rest of the audience and the media. Frame your question with a fact that backs up your position and the position you want the politician to take. It can be particularly effective to use information from what we call “validators”—people with generally accepted credibility on the issues (members of Congress, military experts) or people who don’t generally agree with us but are supportive of our position in this case (Republicans, military).
Know your audience. This is important for both the candidate and the other people attending the event. Make sure your question is relevant to the positions or votes the politician has taken. Also, think about which arguments for your position are most likely to appeal to the candidate and the audience. That way you will get the most relevant information from the question and it will increase your credibility with the audience, the media, and the candidate.
Make your question as specific as possible. You need to make it difficult to avoid giving a straight answer, as many politicians will make a concerted effort to do so. Avoid saying things like “what do you think,” “how do you feel,” etc. Instead ask for specific commitments such as, “do you support withdrawing all US troops from Iraq within one year?”
Sample Iraq Birddogging Questions
For people who don’t support a timeline for withdrawal:
"The National Intelligence Estimate reported that the US military presence in Iraq is a rallying cry for global terrorists. Polls show that the Iraqi people view the military as an occupying force and a majority support attacks on US troops. This points toward a need for a political and diplomatic solution, not a military one. Do you support withdrawing all US troops from Iraq as quickly and safely as possible? Do you support a timeline for the orderly withdrawal of all our troops, beginning immediately?"
"Some have argued against withdrawal from Iraq based on fear of consequences such as sectarian violence and a refugee crisis. Unfortunately, these events are already occurring with the largest military presence in Iraq since the start of the invasion in 2003. It’s clear that the military can’t solve political problems in Iraq. Do you support withdrawing all US troops from Iraq as quickly and safely as possible?"
"Many politicians have advocated keeping our troops in Iraq to prevent al-Qaeda from taking over a portion of Iraq. Intelligence experts confirm that the idea of an al-Qaeda take over is far-fetched, estimating that foreign jihadist fighters make up less than 10% of the insurgency. There is no sense in leaving the US military to referee a civil war and likely increase the amount of violence occurring in Iraq. Do you support withdrawing all US troops from Iraq as quickly and safely as possible?"
"Many people say we shouldn’t set a timeline for withdrawal of US troops because the surge is working. Recent violence in Basra and Baghdad, however, shows that gains from the surge are tenuous, and they haven’t led to political reconciliation. 2007 was the deadliest year of the Iraq war for US troops. Will you support withdrawing all US troops from Iraq as quickly and safely as possible?"
For people who voted for timelines but also for funding:
"Thank you for supporting a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. There is a consensus that we need to shift from a military solution to a political solution in Iraq. Therefore, the only responsible use of our tax dollars is to fund the political solution we need. Do you support tying the funding for the Iraq war to a timeline, and will you vote against the funding if it does not include one?"
"Proponents of the war in Iraq have tried to say that not funding the war means abandoning our troops. The fact is that the best way we can support our troops is to fully fund their safe withdrawal from Iraq and give them the resources they need when they return. Will you support a fully funded withdrawal plan, and will you vote against any funding that does not include a timeline for withdrawal?"
For anyone who supports a timeline:
"Thank you for supporting a timeline to withdraw US troops from Iraq. I am concerned that many withdrawal plans leave tens of thousands of troops in Iraq. Such a large military presence will seriously undermine diplomatic efforts to engage Iraq’s neighbors and assure them the US does not plan a long-term presence. The US needs leverage that can only be gained by a complete military withdrawal. Do you oppose leaving behind tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for 'non-combat' missions? If you support a residual force, how large would it be and what kind of mission would it have?"
"Thank you for voting for supporting a timeline for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Many proponents of withdrawing troops say that the US needs to send a clear message to the Iraqi people that we do not intend to have a long-term military presence there. This would help ease tensions with Iraqis who see the US as an occupying force and would help begin the transfer of responsibility to the Iraqi people. Leaving behind tens of thousands of troops for so-called 'non-combat' missions would undermine this message we want to send. Do you oppose leaving behind a residual force in Iraq? If you support a residual force, how large would it be and what kind of mission would it have?"
"You have acknowledged the need to shift to a political and diplomatic strategy to stabilize Iraq. Most plans that have been offered for withdrawal, however, would leave tens of thousands of troops behind in Iraq. In order to free up the US government’s attention and resources for a successful diplomatic effort, we need to have a complete withdrawal of US troops. Do you oppose leaving behind a residual force in Iraq? If you support a residual force, how large would it be and what kind of mission would it have?"
For all members of Congress and candidates:
"Recently many members of Congress have come out in support of provisions that require the Iraqi government to pay part of the US costs for reconstruction and security. The US went to war based on the Bush administration’s misleading information about Iraq. It is now in America’s political and security interests to repair the damage of Bush’s war and bring more stability to Iraq. Do you support requiring Iraq to pay to repair infrastructure damaged by the US invasion?"
