What did you think about the questions on Iraq that were asked?

[babylonsister]

Did anyone answer to your satisfaction?

I have read that was a major topic, and * was rarely mentioned. So who sounded the most reasonable?

[katsy]

1. Ron Paul is the only one I agree with

about a noninterventionist policy. That's not to say I agree with him on anything else.

No one addressed the Iraq question except the gratuitous "mistakes were made" chatter. The answers were superficial and/or diverted to the more generic GWOT (a/k/a neverending war) policy. Except for Paul, they struck me as powerful men with small dicks. Like they needed to overcompensate for their failings by grunting "kill kill kill".

What bothers me the most about both debates so far is that any one msm company controls the debate. It's a circus. There's no depth to the questions or answers.

I wish the Democrats would host their own debates and invite 3 representatives, teevee and newpaper, to moderate. Giving one news source this much power makes it easy to promote the corporate agenda.

Everyone is just spoting talking points. No one has a chance to speak to the American people.

[babylonsister]

2. Thanks, katsy. This was the LBN I found, but I do like your ideas.

I'm hoping questions will get more serious; it's way too early anyway (18 months?). Will we be in a constant whirl of campaigning from this year on, and then nothing will get done?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2833777

[katsy]

3. I just read that thread... thanks.

I agree it's way too early. But it's not too early to change the venue of these debates.

They should be hosted in a University or other neutral arena setting and bring in more diverse media (internet/teevee/newspapers) representation to keep agendas out of debates.

The people who give us runaway brides 24/7, 7 days a week, are not capable of conducting presidential debates.

[krkaufman]

4. I like Tommy Thompson's suggestion...

... to have the Iraqi government conduct a vote on continuing the American occupation, and we get out if that's the way they vote.

[krkaufman]

5. Most notable, in my opinion, was the absence of any questions regarding ...

- Would you feel it appropriate to mislead the American public regarding the facts of an issue, if it would help you gain their support for a policy you felt critical for American progress or security?

- The military is at its breaking point, some say it's already broken, how will you both continue the war effort in Iraq *and* address the increasing critical military personnel issue?


I honestly don't recall a single question regarding the critically broken state of the military, which is revolting given that 9 of the 10 candidates were continuing to support the policy of preemption.

Neither do I recall any questions regarding the funding of vet care.