Ask the Candidates: Iraq, Iran and National Security
Here are the questions submitted by users about Iraq, Iran or other national security issues.
2:24 PM ET | 11-20-2007 | permalink
Comments
Whom do you, Mr. or Ms. candidate, believe that America is at war with in Iraq? (And, if I'm allowed follow-up questions: why are we at war with them, and how would we know if we won?)
If a war will explode in Kosovo and there is always the risk of spreading in Europe-how will any of you be prepared to handle it?
Thank you.
Recent reports out of Iraq seem to indicate that the situation there may be stabilizing, and that Iraqis are returning to their homes and businesses. If this is indeed true (and not just a manipulation of news by the administration) how would you proceed now to deal with the situation in Iraq?
Plain and simple to each candidate: If you are elected, what is your projected timeline of ground troop withdrawal from Iraq? From Afghanistan?
How many of the ground troops will you withdraw? How many ground troops do you plan to leave in Iraq? In Afghanistan?
Do you plan to maintain an air force base in either Iraq or Afghanistan?
thank you,
fred call
mathematical communications with the
extreme use of the numeral and zero
system is a cyber space hacking tool that is untouchable. WHY is Homelannd Security ignoring this topic.
What will be your short and or long term strategy in killing or capturing key Alqeda leaders (i.e Osama Bin laden) and what should our "relationship" with Pakistan be?
In the early years of George Bush's presidency, President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin gave the appearance of being compatible in foreign policy, if not somewhat friendly toward one another.
That scenario changed dramatically. In Valdimir Putin's most recent speeches he has all but accused the United States of 'bullying' the world. Putin has warned Bush to not tamper in Russian policy making.
To make matters more tense, even though Putin's official term of office is coming to an end in the Kremlin, it looks as though Putin will remain the power behind his hand-picked successors.
What will be your relationship toward Putin and the emerging Russian military power?
Can you afford to look weak when dealing with Russia?
thank you,
fred call
Of the two major parties, Democrats and Republicans, it is the Democratic Party has been favored by the anti-war movement.
Hence, the Republicans have pointed at the Democrats as being the party weaker on defense issues, whether fair or unfairly.
Coming up to the 2004 election, much was made of George Bush's low poll ratings and public dissatisfaction with the handling of the War in Iraq. Much was said, both pro and con, about John Kerry's anti-war activity during Vietnam. Likewise, much was said, pro and con, about John Kerry's service record in Vietnam.
John Kerry ultimately failed to carry the election. The anti-war sentiments did not stop George Bush from winning re-election. Al Gore had fared better in the 2000 election than had John Kerry in 2004.
The questions to you candidates is obvious: How much do you rely on the anti-war vote in the 2008 upcoming election?
What is your response to those who continue to claim that the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center was an inside job?
What is your response to those who say that Osama Bin Laden was helped in his escape from Tora Bora? Do you believe Osama Bin Laden is in Pakistan? In China? Where do you believe Osama Bin Laden to be? Do you think he is dead?
thank you,
fred call
To the question of Iran's purported nuclear buildup.
The U.N. Permanent voters, China and Russia, have issued warnings to the United States regarding Iran.
By all accounts, Iran is receiving arms from China and Russia.
Some would go so far as to say that an ersatz 'Berlin Wall' is being formed between Iraq and Iran.
Not to fail mentioning that American troop strength in Iraq has been reported to be stretched to its limits.
How real is the possibility of an invasion of Iran?
If the war spreads into Iran, will you institute a military draft to bolster American troop ground strength?
How realistic is the presumption by some that an invasion of Iran can be facilitated by air power, relying less on ground troop strength?
thank you,
fred call
President Reagan sent our troops into Panama to capture and bring to America Manual Noriega. At last word, Noriega is still sitting in a prison in South Florida.
Given all that has transpired in Iraq since the invasion, added to the bad publicity surrounding the way Saddam Hussein was executed in Iraq, in the future, would you consider sending in troops to isolate and capture a foreign dictator or despot deemed a danger to the world?
In hindsight, could that military strategy used by President Reagan against Noriega have been implemented in capturing Saddam Hussein, thereby possibly saving American troop's lives over the years since the invasion?
thank you,
fred call
With American voting history as an indicator, even if a war is polled as unpopular, the candidate projecting the stronger national defense image wins the election, ie. Nixon over McGovern in '72, Reagan over Carter in '80, Bush over Kerry in '04.
Some would argue that one of the casualties of the Iraq War has been a lack of public attention to domestic issues.
Short of congress investigating something along the lines like steroid use in sports, it would seem that domestic issues rarely receive front page attention.
To the candidates, can you project a strong national defense posture, while brining to the fore, and placing more emphasis on domestic issues in a way the public will respond, ie, health care, crumbling highway infrastructure, crime?
thank you,
fred call
Do you think that it is acceptable to use waterbording on "enemies" captured by the US to obtain important information? If a foreign country captures one of our soldiers, would you condemn the use of waterboarding our soldier?
Senator Clinton, How is it possible when as First Lady you had the opportunity to see first hand the fallout from the breakup of Yugoslavia, that you could not visualize something similar happening if you voted to authorize the use of military force against Iraq?
As President, would you support and sign legislation requiring the 'able' 18 to 25 year old sons and daughters of the President, Congress and the President's Cabinet, enlist for active duty in the military or in a government sponsored non-combat war effort during times of war?
There is serious metaphorical imagery of the hour hand on the nuclear clock ticking closer to the midnight hour.
It's not unrealistic to say that many Americans fear the coming of a nuclear war.
Hillary Clinton is vying to not only be the first female president, she is vying to be the first former First Lady to become president.
Barack Obama is vying to become the first black president.
Bill Richardson is vying to become the first Hispanic president.
To all candidates: Would you say, or not say, that the Democratic Party is taking a great social experiment gamble in an approaching dark hour?
If the American voters soundly reject the experiment, and the Democratic Party loses the '08 election in a landslide, how do you feel this will affect the anti-war movement in the future?
thank you,
fred call
M.I.T. has been given a substantial government contract to develop the nanotech equipped soldier of the future.
Air Force pilots using remote control in a room on America fly airplanes in Iraq. It is reported one remote flying pilot can theoretically guide a squadron of bombers on the other side of the world.
To all candidates: Is the sci-fi soldier of the future almost here?
Does this trend indicate a smaller but more powerful army?
What are the pros and cons of the future of nanotech, remote control warfare?
Do you support these technological advances? Would you continue to budget for further like technologies?
Particularly to Governor Bill Richardson: Your state, New Mexico, was site to the Manhattan Project and the creation of the first atomic bomb used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to end World War Two. What are your personal feelings on the future of modern nanotech, remote control warfare? What are your personal beliefs on the existence, or non-existence of nuclear 'Suitcase' bombs?
thank you,
fred call
What will you do to put a stop to profiteering in Iraq? What steps will you take to insure that the persons responsible for looting our treasury and putting our soldiers at risk will be prosecuted for their actions?
1. What steps, if any, would the candidate take to entirely eliminate nuclear weapons stockpiles from USA and from the rest of the world.
2. would the candidate insist that, as a precursor for Middle East stability, the nuclear stockpile held by Israel be cleary and fully revealed to the world and especialy to the U.N. nuclear regulatory agencies?
To all the candidates: Given the years of debate on the existence of weapons of mass destruction in the region, how do you compare the nuclear arsenals of Israel, Pakistan and India?
Who has the most effective and powerful nuclear weapons? Where did these weapons come from?
What is the full firepower of Turkey?
What are your plans for stopping a nuclear weapon from detonating anywhere in the region from the Middle East to the Kashmir region?
If we had an alternative energy source, could America greatly reduce our interests in the region? Could we actually pull out and let them solve their own problems? Is there such a thing as a regional nuclear war that would not spread into an international war?
thank you,
fred call
I am the mother of a young man who served three years in the Army, one year in Iraq. He was able to obtain an early discharge due to PTSD symptoms. Our all-volunteer military is stretched beyond belief with two, three and sometimes four deployments, and our soldiers are broken. Do you think that a draft would, first, make the United States more secure if there was another natural catastrophe, an attack, or national emergency, and second, would force more Americans to "get off the fence" and decide if they are really for or against the current war in Iraq and the threat of war against Iran?
What plans would you impliment to take care of the soldiers who come home with delayed symptoms? Would you address the care of these men and women in your first 100 days in office.
Will you make public where your administration draws the line between "lawful interrogation" and "torture'?
Please estimate the number of American citizens who you will designate as "enemy combatants".
"AUSTIN, Texas -- Well, cut off my legs and call me Shorty. I'll be go to hell. Danged if Charlie Wilson didn't win the Cold War singlehandedly........In this case, we are left with the unfortunate fact that Wilson's War armed a bunch of people who are now shooting at us."
.....The late, great Molly Ivins from her 2003 article
Now the Mike Nichols' movie of 'Charlie Wilson's War' is set to debut this December, starring Tom Hanks and Julia Childs. All based on the George Crile book on how Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson persuaded the CIA to arm the Mujihideen in Afghanistan against the Soviet invaders.
Early on during the Iraq invasion, NPR carried news pieces about Charlie Wilson's story.
To all the canidates: You know the story. The CIA supplied Osama Bin Laden back then. We didn't follow up on the aftermath of the Soviet/Afghan War. Now we are fighting the enemy we once armed.
To be fair, the Soviets and China both armed the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War.
What do you think of Charlie Wilson's story's possible impact and repercussions at this time of a coming election year?
Do you think the movie and the book will be taken by the public as entertainment to be all but forgotten by election day? Or, do you think the public will stop to think twice?
In your personal opinions, just how informed do you feel the general American public is to the intricacies and bureaucracy of the Mideast and the Kashmir Wars?
thank you,
fred call
To all the candidates: Far as I know, on September 11, 2001, all of you were holding some political office, or involved in politics in one way or the other.
You were and are all politicians carrying a personal mental image of yourselves as President of the United States. Otherwise you would not be running for the office today.
On 9/11, I'm assuming each of you had a train of thought that privately imagined yourself as president, and you said to yourself, "This is what I'd do in response to the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers."
What you said to yourself may, or may not have been the same as they way you voted. Simply because you were, in fact, not president. You could only imagine yourself being president, doing what you would do.
If you can and will, go back to that time and tell us what you said to yourself while imagining being president at the time of the terrorist attack, and the months following the attack?
thank you,
fred call
If the International Criminal Court indicts a former president of the United States for war crimes and torture, would you remand the accused?
What will you do as president to keep the promises made to the American people about liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban, enforcing women's human rights, and dismanteling Al Queda?
Libya's Momar Qhadafi's name has been linked to the Munich Massacre, the Lockerbie 747 Massacre and a host of terrorist related activities.
As the saying goes, we hit his tennis court with a missile. Except Qhadafi wasn't playing tennis at the time. But every since, Momar Qhadafi has been playing nicer on the terrorist home front.
Given the number of American lives lost in Iraq, added to the number of Iraqi lives lost since the invasion, would a missile or carpet bombing of Saddam's tennis court been a feasible option?
Is the use of 'persuasion' an alternative to a large invasion?
If not, then why not?
Can we win the War on Terror by playing fair, when the other side doesn't play fair?
Or, should we get out of the War on Terror and move onto the next order of business?
Or, is the War on Terror a continual 'staying' tactic, as was the long running Cold War, and if so, how long can America play 'staying' tactics?
Do we even have a choice in the matter, given that world wide terrorism is so pervasive, particularly in poor but mineral rich third world countries?
thank you,
fred call
On Feb. 11, 2004 my 19 year old nephew became the 538th US casualty in Iraq. We are now approaching 4000 KIA and many more horribly wounded. What will you tell the families of these dead and wounded? Why are our children dead and injured and what did you do to try to prevent it or stop it from continuing? What is the purpose of their sacrifice and our pain and loss?
While most of this country polls as being opposed to the Iraq War, few do anything about the war. As the wife of a military servicemember, I do not have the luxury of not paying attention to this war and fighting to be sure that our military is only used when necessary. Please explain your plans for extricating us from the current conflict, which is breaking our military and their families, and being sure that America does not enter another war in Iran or other countries for lies and greed.
Can you justify why we have over 700 military bases around the world? Do you believe that the military should be used to protect and propel American business interests around the world?
This question would be specifically for Ms. Clinton:
Votes have consequences. The horrific debacle in Iraq is a result of voting the current administration into office, and the vote by the Senate that cleared the way for the war.
Many of us are loathe to vote for any individuals that had a part in any votes or actions that facilitated our invasion of Iraq. Given that, and regardless of how we might otherwise feel about other issues, many of us simply will not vote for you unless you can satisfy us that your future judgements regarding the use of the military in the Middle East will show better judgement. What can you say to to convince us?
Can each of you state, in your own words, the difference between a Just and an Unjust War as outlined by the Founders?
We have failed to take care of our 4 Million Disabled Veterans, especially those suffereing from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injuries - how, then, are you going to ensure full, mandatory, perpetual funding for the VA and provide Health Care to 40 Million unisured Americans and what will you do to close the "donut holes" in those that think they are fully insured, but, in fact, they are not comprehensively covered?
Everyone has criticized the sitting president for having no foresight and no plan for Iraq after overthrowing Saddam. Under your plan for ending the war, what will happen in Iraq when we leave? What will happen in the Middle East? Will Iran or Syria take over? Will we still be able to buy oil?
I met someone recently who joined the military to pay for college. He went to school for two years and was then sent to Iraq. Upon returning he has not been able to go back to school due to barely receiving enough disability pay to afford to live, let alone pay the current outrageous tuition costs at most schools. The GI bill is largely responsible for the prosperity of post-WWII America but it is out of date and out of touch. What will you do as president to support our troops after they return home from this terrible war?
The Bush Administration blundered by not anticipating and preparing for the challenges we would face after a successful invasion. Mr./Ms. Candidate, please respond to the charge that the Democrats are making precisely the same blunder in their call for a withdrawal of troops. If the charge is untrue, what do you think will happen in the region after a withdrawal and what is your strategy for responding?
We've now spent more than 470 billion dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you had it to do over, what would you spend $470 billion on?
How would you stop a war between the United States and Iran? Do you agree with leaving all options on the table in regards to a possible U.S. attack on Iran including the nuclear option?
I had a conversation with a veteran who was stationed in South Korea in the late 80's. I asked, "do you think we would ever leave and let South Korea take care of thier own issues with North Korea"? He said, "no". There will always be a reason to stay. Then joked, "real or imaginary". After over 50 years can our military pull out and focus on middle eastern threats, "wheather real or imaginary"?
How would you go about preventing the Bush administration from starting a war against Iran?
When compared with all the other problems, foreign and domestic, that the next president will face, what priority does the so called war on terror deserve and what will it get?
Given that our democracy is being destroyed by the marriage of our government with corporate interests (both here and abroad), and that the rise of terrorism is a result of our oppressive and exploitive foreign policy, what are you willing to do to rein in this aggressive cut-throat capitalism that threatens our security and our economy?
Re: the war on terror. Clearly, many muslims hate the U.S. enough to want to do us grievous harm. Would you speculate on the reasons for their hatred of us, and could it have anything to do with our long history of meddling in their internal affairs, subverting their governments, stationing our troops on their soil and our uneven handling of the Israel-Palestine problem? Thank you.
Do you think all the representatives and senators who voted for the Iraq War should be (have been) fired?
As president, what would you do to end secret prisons abroad, disappearances and the practice of rendering people to countries known to enlist torture?
Considering the fact that the current administration's "War on Terror" has been a total disaster, what would be your approach to reducing the threat of terrorism.
This question is for Senator Clinton. I read in Zbgniew Brezenski's book Second Chance that a strongly worded petition was sent to President Clinton in 1998 urging regime change and pre-emptive strike in Iraq. This petition was signed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and many others (2/3 of whom are part of the current administration). In light of that petition, how could you possibly have believed that those very people were telling the truth when they were assuring us that Sadam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and needed to be taken out? They had been urging that action since before Mr. Clinton left office.
Question for Rudy Giuliani: Recently you named potential members for your foriegn policy team. They include Norman Podhoretz, a prominent neoconservative who advocates bombing Iran ???as soon as it is logistically possible???; Daniel Pipes, the director of the Middle East Forum, who has called for profiling Muslims at airports and scrutinizing American Muslims in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps; and Michael Rubin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who has written in favor of revoking the United States??? ban on assassination.
Why did you feel the perspective that these men bring to your foreign policy team would be a good idea? What is it about their perspective that you find attractive? Would your foreign policy be different from the Bush administration? If yes, how? If not, why not?
You (the candidates) have been asked repeatedly and you have responded repeatedly that you oppose the current Iraq War and the policy of military aggression. Now, in a different and positive direction, would you advocate for the creation of a Department of Peace? This would seek solutions to gloabal crises at a fraction of cost that the Departments of Defense and State have been unwilling or unable to reach?
oops. Never mind. Rudy is running as a Republican. My bad. It's getting harder and harder to tell the difference between the two parties isn't it? Not even a dime's worth of it left ...
To any candidate, of any party, who will volunteer to answer this question:
All this talk about indicting and impeaching George Bush for war crimes, how does this work without indicting all the congressional assemblage who voted for George Bush's measures in Iraq?
Including, indicting some of the present candidates for presidency?
Is there some legal or Constitutional loophole I missed?
Which leads me to another question. In your personal opinion, given all the malaprops and all George Bush has committed, just how dumb do you personally take George Bush to be?
Or, could this have been Karl Rove instructing George Bush to play the con, the Dumb and Dumber role, thereby suckering in those who'd call for impeachment without somehow indicting those Democratic senators and congress people who likewise voted for the war measures?
And, in your personal opinions, who looks Dumber? George Bush who can't pronounce nuclear, or those who call fo indictment on a selective basis?
Of, is it me. I just look stupid because I missed something genuinely genius about the plan to impeach George Bush just as he's coming close to leaving office?
And, dear candidate, if you think I'm the one who is stupid, please feel free to call me as much.
thank you,
fred call
Though some Democrats felt they needed to vote for George Bush's Iraq War resolution in 2002, I don't think any Democrat would have pushed for that war or invaded Iraq. What will be your criteria for deciding when and where to use the U.S. military forces?
Given that U.S. efforts in Iraq are ill-conceived, unwelcome, and absurdly expensive, why would it be crazy to go cold turkey--and redirect the billions of dollars in logistics, contracting, and procurement to much-needed upgrades in public education, housing, and health care in this struggling country and economy of ours? Apart from misguided complacency, social inertia, and the politics of fear and distraction, how could any plain-speaking and practical person still argue that Iraq is the better place to invest our time, talent, money and youth--especially when numerous pundits and military strategists bemoan the backfiring of America's antiterrorism-based foreign policy and the real-time attenuation of U.S. military strength worldwide?
What role will you play in ending the apartheid situation between Israel and Palestine?
Currently, federal law requires young men to register for the draft to help ensure our future military preparedness. Would you support the continuation of draft registration during your first term as President? If so, do you support current law that provides an automatic exemption from military service for gay men who might be drafted?
If you are unsure or doubtful whether waterboarding is torture, would you be willing to undergo the procedure to help decide if it is an acceptable method of questioning.
To all the candidates, this question:
Obviously your research teams have looked into the various demographics of the American voters.
Do you believe that you can win the office of the President while looking weak on national defense?
Or, put it this way, can you look strong on domestic issues while looking weak on national defense issues, and win?
In your opinion, is it possible that the anti-war movement has gone so far into left field, without any credible direction or significant leadership, that relying too heavily on the anti-war movement to get you elected, will not get you elected?
Do you think that if you present a strong domestic platform, coupled with a strong national defense, that you will have a better chance in the election?
I think so. I'm a registered Democrat. I truly believe that the Democratic Party has a much better chance of surviving the '08 election by presenting a strong domestic objective, while pledging to finish the job in Iraq.
After all, most of you voted for the war. In your opinion, do you feel that making excuses now for the way you voted in the past makes you look weak?
If you were truly against the war, and you thought you could keep your congressional seats back then, you would have voted against the Bush measures in Iraq. What makes you think that you can do a turn around now and that it will get you the office of the presidency?
And, do you ever stop to think that if you continue to look weak on national defense, and you lose in a landslide in '08, that the Democratic Party will have pretty much lost its last vestiges of credibility with the American people?
Do any of you ever think about these things?
thank you,
fred call
Perhaps this is more of a question about mistakes and apologies rather than the war. But while Senator Obama and Congressman Kucinich opposed the war and Senator Edwards has admitted his vote and support for the war was wrong, Senator Clinton, while admitting the war vote was a mistake seems unable to say "I was wrong" or "I am sorry," which reminds me of President Bush's inability to admit he had made mistakes in his career. If you would not vote for the war again, why not admit wrongdoing and apologize? Making mistakes is not just an American condition, but a human one. For the other candidates, what mistake in the last decade, including support for the war, would you like to have back?
In a recent debate, Senator Clinton stated that the most important job of the president is to protect the United States of America. In fact, the President takes an oath to protect the _Constitution_ of the United States of America which, among other things, enshrines our civil liberties. A famous quote usually attributed to Benjamin Franklin states "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Clearly there is a tension between the physical protection of the country and its citizens and the protection of our essential civil liberties.
I would like to hear each candidates views on this, and whether they believe that Constitutional liberties should be curtailed in the name of protecting our citizens, our economic interests and our borders.
Rather than focusing so much attention (nearly going ballistic....) on N. Korea and Iran, shouldn't the US be advocating for dismantling all nuclear weapons including its own, Israel, Pakistan, China, France, etc.? Isn't that the true path to global security?
Question for all candidates- Regarding the Israel-Palestine situation, should the U.S. apply pressure on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank back to pre-1967 borders, leaving its settlements and not keeping any Palestinian territory? Pressure could include severely limiting U.S. financial and military aid to Israel, voting in the U.N. against Israel, and possibly other sanctions or embargos.
What would your response be if Iran invaded Iraq after the US withdraws its troops?
Candidates, some of you have stated unequivocally your positions regarding the current war in Iraq. Others of you, specifically, Mrs. Clinton, have been less specific.
My question addresses America's capability to continue the Iraqi conflict. Clearly our armed forces, including National Guard, are stretched to their limits now. If the United States continues to pursue a strategy of "victory", it appears a draft will be needed.
Mrs. Clinton, you have stated your support for a strategic victory in Iraq. This will require continued military presence there for many years. Will you institute a draft? If so, when? Other candidates, if you do not support immediate draw-down of troop presence and withdrawal from the theater of conflict, will you call for a draft, and if so, when?
Dear Democratic Presidential Candidates,
Anyone who listens hears an ever-louder drum-beat for war between the USA and Iran. It is our own media, and our own White House, calling for an immoral, reckless war of aggression.
Given the destructive potential toward the Iranian people and government, toward our own precious American troops, caught in neighboring Iraq, toward our nation???s desperately important relationships with our allies and the rest of the world, and toward the global oil-based economy, which could easily be forced into a recession, do you plan to stop this war? Given that a US attack could set the Middle East ablaze, are you prepared to face the dangers inherent in speaking for peace?
If you are prepared to stop this catastrophe, then how will you work against it? What political strategy could stop Bush???s Administration, which views the Congress as an impediment to be bypassed, and the laws as beneath contempt? And if you do not plan to work against this potential catastrophe, then how will you live with yourself?
Respectfully,
Aaron Dellutri
To all the candidates: This is a multiple choice question. Please choose either A, B, C, or D.
In your campaign you promise to pull all the troops out of Iraq in your first one hundred days of office.
And, miraculously, you win.
So, one hundred days to the day into your presidency, the last American troops leave Iraq.
On the one hundred and first day into your presidency, a terrorist attack kills several thousand people in a large American city.
On what day into your presidency will your impeachment hearings begin?
A. One hundred and second day?
B. One hundred and third day?
C. One hundred and fourth day?
D. One hundred and fifth day?
Now, for the bonus round. This is a yes or no question. Rather than go through the impeachment process, would you simply resign your office?
Now, an optional question you can answer, or not. If you get elected, are you really going to pull the troops out of Iraq?
thank you,
fred call
Senator Biden. Thanks to you and your family for investing so much of you and your family in Iowa. We appreciate that very much. Now that we hear about some progress, that is lower violence, in Iraq, why is your exit strategy for Iraq that important?
Most of the talk from the Democratic candidates thus far has centered around how quickly troops would be withdrawn in each candidates administration. However, under international law we, as the occupying force, have a moral and legal obligation to rebuild the country we are occupying. What political and diplomatic steps would you take to assist reconciliation between the political factions in Iraq in order to restore peace to the country? What steps would you take to restore America's image in the region?
Senator Obama, I find that you and Senator Clinton, as front runners are close on many issues, which is why you both appeal to me as a voter. However, Senator Clinton's experience as First Lady for eight years and first hand witness to the pitfalls of the Presidency give her an edge in coming to office. How can you convince me that you would be as ready to start as President on day 1 as Senator Clinton?
I believe that the internment of detainees at Guantanamo is an appalling violation of human rights. I also believe that the United States??? much publicized detention of political prisoners damages our country???s ability to negotiate with other nations. What is your position on the detainees, and how will you deal with their continuing detention? And how does this affect our ability to engage in diplomacy with other nations regarding their own human rights violations.
The end of the Korean War was delayed for two years, and tens of thousands died, because China and North Korea refused to release Allied POWs until all their soldiers held as prisoners were forcibly repatriated. The Geneva Convention prohibits forcible repatriation, so Presidents Truman and Eisenhower refused. Allied boys died so that communist boys didn't have to go home.
If a similar situation arose again, what would you do? Imagine the Taliban offer up Al Queda leaders including Osama Bin Laden, in exchange for the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. But some of Guantanamo prisoners refuse, claiming they'll be killed if they return. The Taliban say it's all or nothing. Should the president refuse this deal, because the Geneva Convention prohibits forcible repatriation?
Both America's position and image in the world becomes more important every day. How would you as president be the most effective in strengthening this image and position in the eyes of the rest of the world?
My question is this, the candidates all talk of getting out of Irag and what their "exit strategy" will be to do this. What I would like to know is do any of the candidates have a "return strategy" for our troops as they re-acclimate themselves into civilian life? What are we going to do for these men and women to help them with this important transition?
What are the candidates plannning to do to reverse the questionably constitutional actions, e.g.. sidestepping FISA, torture, rendition, restriction of habeas corpus, etc., that Bush has implemented in the name of National Security but threaten everyone's civil liberties?
How should US government processes be restructured to limit presidential power such that military catastrophes similar to Iraq, Viet Nam, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki could never be repeated?
US support of Israel is a sore point in our relationship with the Arab world and other Muslim countries. Israel has no oil, we have no bases there and seemingly limited influence with the Israeli government. Why is it in our national interest to continue to support Israel?
If you were one of the people who supported the Iraq War Resolution, and now say you made a "mistake", how do you justify your error in the light of so many ordinary people opposing war, even though you had access to at least as much information about the situation as they did?
Do you remember reading about the literally millions of people worldwide who were protesting what you were about to do?
I was there. I protested. I witnessed.
Considering the vast number of unanswered questions, contradictions and anomalies surrounding the events of 9/11 -- as well as the admitted frustration of various 9/11 Commissioners -- do you believe a reopening of the 9/11 investigation is warranted?
Mrs.Clinton, I've been researching some of what I find to be the most objectionable aspects of our alleged "war on terror" and it appears that your husband is responsible for bringing several of these methods into use by the executive branch. Methods ranging from extra-ordinary rendition to the increasing use of private security forces at home and abroad all were accelerated under your husbands administration. What I want to know is why should I support a candidate that seems to be willing to carry on with the same policies that the two previous administrations have used?
Senator Obama. Hello, I am a two Iraq tour Army Captain currently attending school for my masters. On my last tour as a company Commander, I saw an entire years worth of work lost in a matter of days because we tried to give authority to the Iraq???s to fast. My question is this, If progress continues to be made both in the security side and even in the political side, and your advisers and generals advise you to slow the with-drawl as opposed to having the majority of troops out by the summer of 09, will you rethink your strategy, or will you simply get troops out because that is what you have promised.
Given the difficulty that our military is facing with recruitment due to the burden of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the lack of fluent Arab speakers/experts in the ranks, will any of you be willing to end the onerous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy started by President Clinton in order to retain such needed talent?
What will you do about the so-called"Missile Defense" system? Will you continue to deploy an unproven, expensive weapon?
I have heard you explain why you voted for the Iraq war. People told you it was a good idea and you trusted them.
Are you going to trust them again when they tell you to invade Iran? How do you know if you are getting good intelligence or bad intelligence?
Please comment on the following: In her new book, ???The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot???, Naomi Wolf says the United States is on the road to becoming a fascist society, right under our very noses. Wolf outlines what she sees as the ten steps to shut down a democratic society and argues that the Bush administration has already implemented many of these steps.
The U.S. spends more money on its military than all other countries in the world combined. Would you support reorienting American foreign policy from one based on attempting to dominate the world to one based on compassion, generosity, and humility--focus our resources on bringing an end to war and alleviating hunger, disease and poverty worldwide?
Terrorism has existed in the world since ancient times. The U.S. faced much more powerful threats to our national security in the past (Hitler's Germany, which had conquered most of Europe; Imperial Japan, which had conquered most of Asia; the USSR, which had the power to obliterate the U.S. hundreds of times over). Do you agree with Mr. Bush that today we must give up civil liberties and rights that we didn't have to give up while fighting past conflicts?
Most if not all people that use commercial air travel have to take off their shoes to board an aircraft, because of a single failed attempt to use them as a bomb. Does this really make us any safer or is it more of the governments actions to make us feel safer but that actually does little to nothing to reduce the real hazard. What would we be doing if the bomb hand been in a pair of pants???
To each of the Democratic presidential hopefuls: For many years our country has been extremely generous in its financial support of Israel and I understand that Israel returns a sizable portion of those funds as payment to US arms dealers. The Bush administration has been consistently biased toward Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians, but Democratic administrations and Congress haven't a much better record. As president, will you be free to speak for fairness in the West Bank and Gaza or are you "beholden" to the American-Israili lobby? Will you put more pressure on Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank? If there are prospects of any improvement in the Palestine situation coming out of Maryland, will you promise to keep working toward a fair solution after you become president? And would you try to make sure American arms dealers are not making policy as well as a profit from the conflict?
Operating on the assumption that one of you Democratic candidates WILL become the next President of the U.S., once you are inaugurated you will have access to all the classified information that George W. Bush now has access to, and you will be able to determine if Bush has lied to the American people when he has repeatedly declared: "The United States does not engage in torture." Once you learn the truth or falsity of that statement, will you share that information with the American people? Please!
Greetings Mr. and/or Mrs. Candidate: the Bush administration has created an atmosphere of secrecy and civil rights roll-backs due to the MANY "Signing Statements" they have created, seemingly for the sole purpose of removing the "rights" in the Constitution they don't like...all in the name of "The War on Terror". What will you do to dismantle these signing statements and restore, to start, habeas corpus ?
Simple math test, please answer only with numbers.
1. We have been in Iraq for 16 years now. How many more years do you plan to stay there?
2. We have lost almost 4,000 soldiers in this occupation. How many more are you willing to lose?
3. After almost $1 trillion we are still hemorrhaging dollars. How much more would you spend on this fiasco?
4. Our policies and actions in Iraq, have caused the death of one million human beings. How many more of our fellow humans do you plan to kill?
Comments and Question to all candidates.
In my opinion the American people do not appreciate the true cost of military conflict and support to our troops.
Conflict being the cost of DOD operations, materials and wages worldwide.
Support being the cost of military and veteran medical care.
Restructuring the tax codes to raise or lower conflict and support taxes to reflect Administration and Congressional decisions to deploy our troops would allow the American people to experience the real cost of peace in the USA.
Question: Would you support the addition of conflict and peace taxes?
I was anti-war when most of our elected officials voted in favor of it...and as much as i would love for us to leave the area (both for sake of human lives and money)i don't know how we can leave the region? do we want a repeat of what happened in afganistan?
(follow up question) if it is determined that for the world's sake, we need to stay, what plans do the candidates have to manage the business of war better - i believe their are as many private contractors doing business in iraq as there are member nations at the un...isn't it time to give the money to the people fighting and rebuilding (including providing mental health counciling for families and military/workers) and not to the corporate ceos who are making huge profits? are you willing to investigate and prosecute people/businesses that illegally profited/inflated costs/charged for services that were not rendered?
This is addressed particularly to Senator Clinton. If we leave Iraq now (by the end of 2008) there will likely be chaos and if we leave ten years from now there will likely be chaos. If we leave now we can start addressing the issue of controlling terrorism, building back US credibility, use billions of dollars to address our serious domestic problems which are dramatic. This administration's actions in Iraq have resulted in a catastrophy. Do you actually believe that we can fix the damage we have done in Iraq and the Middle East by staying in Iraq?
How will you extricate our country from Iraq? Please give a direct answer without all the hems, haws, etc. that politicians are prone to use. Please none of "first let me say", please no posturing on why you supported the war or didn't in the beginning. Just a simple, to the point, how and when.
In 2002, the Bush Administration crafted a new pre-emptive war policy, now known as the "Bush Doctrine," that calls for the US to strike when the US or its allies are threatened by terrorists or rogue states that are producing weapons of mass destruction. The doctrine holds that if lacking international support we should act unilaterally, and that we can act if the threat is "emerging" or "sufficient," even if "uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack." This policy led to our invasion of Iraq where we found no WMDs.
(1) Do you subscribe to the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war?
(2) Regardless of your position on the Bush Doctrine, would you pledge "no first use" of nuclear weapons? Why or why not?
Have your read THREE CUPS OF TEA by David Relin? How would you support similar win-win approaches toward developing nations?
The Military Commissions Act takes away the most basic legal protections. It permits our government to commit torture. It allows prosecutors to use secret evidence and confessions obtained by torture. It allows presidents to declare anyone they want an 'enemy combatant' with no right of appeal. It's a serious threat to democracy. Will you pledge to work for full repeal of the MCA? If not, why not?
Do you believe the United States owes the people of Iraq an apology for the bloodshed we have precipitated in their country? If so, how would you word it and deliver it?
Do you believe that U.S. government support for numerous dictators over the last 60 years weakens our standing in the world today? To seek peace and understanding with Iran, would you consider apologizing for CIA participation in installing the Shah of Iran?
Should we make continued US financial support of Isreal contingent upon that country's compliance with the "roadmap" withdrawal of settlements and other examples of a sincere effort to accommodate Palestine
The powers of the Executive Office of the Presidency, which have been growing for decades, have been so increased during the years of the Bush Presidency that the separation of powers among branches of governent, on which our constitutional government is based, is severely threatened. What would you do as President to restore the constitutional distribution of powers among the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. In sum: What would you do to diminish the powers of the office to which you aspire in order to protect the Constitution?
Do you consider peace between Israel and the Palestinians to be the most important requirement for stability in the Middle East? If so, what should the role of the United States in promoting the peace process?
Will you restore the writ of habeas corpus (i.e. the right to petition against unlawful detention) with regard to all persons held against their will by the U.S. government or its agents, whether on U.S. property or not?
Is 'water-boarding' a form of torture?
Will you end the practice of 'extra-ordinary rendition' and, if so, will you provide a robust means for Congress and/or the Courts to independently certify that the practice has been ended?
Why do the media- moderators - at debates not question the candidates about topics such as their policy on torture or waterboarding. I for one want to know what they believe in or oppose rather than talking all around and not saying anything.
You are asked to approve a surgical missile strike that has a good chance of killing a high-priority terrorist suspect but also a good chance of killing a substantial number of innocent civilians. Would you approve such a mission?
How do you feel Jesus would handle our foreign policy issues?
As President will you focus only on withdrawal of US troops from Iraq or on achieving a negotiated peace with our adversaries?
Can we learn something from the successful peace process in Cambodia which brought together all the parties in conflict inside Cambodia, including the functioning government and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge (whose record was even bloodier than the Baathists or even Al Qaeda), plus all neighboring countries, plus international powers?
Do you believe that the end justifies the means?
The United States has had a history of very minimal response in the face of genocide, such as in Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia, and even 1930's Nazi Germany and 1910's Turkey. To what extent should the United States' role be the world's policeman when tragic issues occur across the globe which don't directly affect American political or economic interests? As a follow up, how would you compare your reaction with President Clinton's in the face of the Rwandan genocide? What should be done in Darfur?
Would you make a commitment to fully repeal the Military Commissions Act, reinstating Habeas Corpus, outlawing torture and restoring other extremely critical civil liberties?
With all due respect, refusing to continue funding for Iraq & Afghanistan sets a dangerous precedent against our National Security interests here at home & abroad. How can I be assured that you will do whatever it takes to protect us against terrorist threats in the future, while also protecting our civil liberties? Thank you
What do you consider to be the minimum acceptable outcome of America's involvement in Iraq? Under your presidency, how likely is this outcome, and what will it cost, in dollars and lives?
Which is more important, personal liberty or national security?
For how long is it legal to detain American citizens without access to counsel?
To Senator Clinton: You have said that if you knew then what you know now, you would not have voted to authorize the Iraq war. You have never, however, apologized for your erroneous vote. Millions of us were out on the streets protesting war preparations, and accurate information about the absence of WMD in Iraq was widely available from a number of verifiable sources. Why should we want to elect another president who refuses to listen to dissenting voices or to admit error?
Considering all of our recent wars have not had a formal declaration of war, as president would you seek a formal declaration from congress before proceeding with a prolonged armed conflict? If not why?
In what ways does patriotism transcend national security? How would your administration make patriotism mean more than jingoism, the assertion of national will in the form of occupation of other countries, and knee-jerk hero worship of all things military?
A simple question for all the candidates, the answer to which I think a great deal of our future hinges:
Is it possible for the United States to end the War in Iraq while American soldiers remain there?
Given that we have already been told that $billions of American Taxpayer dollars have "gone missing" in Iraq, do you believe that laws may have been broken, and if so, what will you do to investigate and prosecute individuals, American or otherwise, who may have been involved?
To the Democratic contenders:
Do you support, in keeping with the plans now in place, the largest US embassy ever, anywhere in the world, being in Baghdad? Why or why not?
To all:
After 9/11 we had tremendous good will and sympathy from around the globe. Our actions (including trying to bully the world into going along with us)since have not only depleted that but made us despised to an unprecendented degree and made terrorism more of a threat instead of less.
What would you do to treat other countries more fairly and increase American prestige around the world?
Both parties continue to say what their political base wants to hear, not what the majority of citizens want to hear. Statements that imply ???we will stay in Iraq indefinitely??? or ???we should begin leaving immediately??? are not what America wants to hear. We want to know our current goals in Iraq. My question is ???What are the measurable and observable signs that show we have achieved our goals in Iraq????
We were lead to believe Iraq had something to do with 911, they had WMD, and they were an imminent threat. The original goals given for invading Iraq have been accomplished or accepted as not possible. Think removal of Saddam Hussein and the suspected weapons of mass destruction.
Statements that spin the party line like ???until the Iraqi people can defend themselves???, ???win the hearts and minds???, and ???achieve victory??? are opinions that have different meanings to different people. Until there are plainly stated goals that are not just a matter of opinion we can???t have a realistic discussion how when the troops can begin to leave Iraq.
Congressman Kucinich, you have stated that you will create a cabinel level Department of Peace and Non-Violence. How would that Department operate particularly in relation to the State Department and the Department of Defense?
for all candidates: Does the US have any military obligations to protect Israel? If yes, why?
If elected, would you be willing to begin your presidency with the bold, decisive step of forgoing the customary inaugural ball and other festivities on January 20, 2009, choosing instead to spend the day in the Oval Office, issuing the order for the immediate withdrawal from all troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The US Military, especially the Army, is stretched under the strain of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the deployment of U.S. troops in over 100 countries. With recruitment stagnating or down, would you support the reinstatement of the draft? Should women be included in such a draft? Should there be deferments as we saw in the Viet Nam era draft? Finally, would you support disengagement from these military deployments as an alternative to the draft?
Since 9/11 we have had more and more invasive security measures and encrochment upon our civil liberties in the name of combating terrorism. To a lay person all this reeks of fearmongering. Most of these measures are much more for show than to effectively combat terrorism. Many countries have faced far more credible terrorist threats (Britian/IRA), (Spain,ETA)..., without resorting to this type of fearmongering. Do you believe the terror threat is as dire as it is portrayed by the Bush administration? Would you scale back the intrusive 'security' measures such as xraying shoes, no liquids on planes...
Do you believe that Al Quaeda represents a significant, maybe even an existential, threat to America? If so, why are we not pulling out all the stops - a war tax to pay for the war on terrorism and a draft to provide the boots on the ground?
At the end of WWII, Germany and Japan were full of people who hated America. From their perspective, we had played a major part in the killing of their people, bombing of their cities, fracturing of their power and pride, and the removal of their governments.
Not too long after that, the two nations were amongst our greatest allies. And we didn't bully them into submission or sacrifice our allies to do it.
What happened shortly after WWII that caused this change, and would you, as President, be willing to commit the US to a similar goal in the Middle East?
Why does everyone keep referring to the "war" in Iraq when it is clearly an occupation at this point? If you consider it a war, who are we at war with? If we are fighting a war against terrorism, wouldn't the most appropriate response be to not allow ourselves to be terrorized, instead of perpetuating unnecessary fear in every public place in the country?
The current Administration and the Republicans generally have done well for themselves by making Americans as afraid as possible these past six years. I consider this bad for the country, as a terrorised population is what they want---they'll behave irrationally, make bad decisions, and lose themselves and their national character.
How can you win and govern without encouraging irrational fear. In particular, I was wondering if Sen. Obama would agree that a black man, to rise in this world, has a vested interest in white people not feeling afraid....
One of the most consequential but least known decisions concerning foreign affairs made during the 1990s was to dismantle the U.S. Information Agency. This public diplomacy agency, crucial to the West???s victory in the Cold War, kept the world continuously reminded of America???s values and long-term goals even when a particular Administration acted in ways that alienated most of the world.
Public diplomacy from within the State Department over the past eight years has been feeble at best. What would you do to reinvigorate America???s public diplomacy efforts?
What are you going to do to end the occupation of Palestine? Would you consider cutting off all funding to Israel until the occupation is ended and a fair and just Palestinian self-contained sovereign state is established?
Because we invaded Iraq & removed the existing, stable government... how much moral responsibility do you feel that the U.S. has for re-stabilizing Iraq? What actions would constitute a "reasonable try" at stabilizing Iraq? Is it an option to pull out of just Baghdad & only help the friendly North & South?
Question for all candidates: Will you promise to, if elected, restore the rule of law by:
1) Repudating the practices of rendition, torture, detention without trial, and warantless searches?
2) Work with the Congress to pass legislation making these practices definitely unlawful? and
3) Work with the Congress to restore an appropriate level of Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch's activities?
The death of almost 3000 people by foreign terrorists on Sept. 21, 2001, was a tragedy of almost unimaginable proportions. However, given that: 1) over 16,000 people are killed in this country each and every year by drunk drivers; 2) that three times as many people are killed or injured by drunk drivers as by ALL of the violent crimes COMBINED, and almost 9000 people are killed in this country each and every year by handguns; please tell us who are the REAL terrorists, and what do you think the Department of Homeland Security should do to protect us against these actuarily larger dangers to our well-being?
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." This is in the US constitution... so we are clearly not under rebellion, but are we under invasion? I think not. When will you restore Habeas Corpus?
If you want to restore America's international reputation, how will you address a US policy that isolates us even more than Iraq and is opposed by two-thirds of Americans?
Our unilateral trade and travel embargo of Cuba is seen by the world, and especially by our own hemisphere, as old fashioned US bullying and completely inconsistent with our close ties with Vietnam and China.
President Bush has censored photographs of the caskets of sevicemen killed in Iraq or Afghanistan being returned to the United States. If elected, would you allow the media to broadcast our fallen heroes' final return home?
Assuming that peace between Israelis and Palestinians is a worthy goal in itself, and that it could be one factor in bringing stability to the Middle East, what is the most significant role that the United States will play during your administration to help the Israelis and Palestinians achieve an enduring state of peace?
Which, if any, of the following would you do during your first 100 days in office?:
1. Restore Habeas Corpus
2. Ban the use of torture, as defined in
the United Nations Convention
Against Torture
3. Ban the use of warrantless wiretaps
against US citizens
4. Ban the procedure known as
"extraordinary rendition", wherein
individuals are kidnapped and taken
to foreign countries for detention or
interrogation
5. Close down all secret prisons run by
the CIA or other US agencies
6. For National Security Letters, ban
the use of "gag orders" which prevent
individuals who are served with the
Letters from seeking council or
publicly questioning the Letters.
7. Set a Date Certain for the return of
US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan
8. Order a thorough review of the
behavior of independent contractors
during the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan which would identify
any crimes that these contractors
may have committed
9. Strongly advocate legislation that
would limit the term of recess
appointments to the actual duration
of the recess during which
the appointment was made
10. Issue an executive order stating
that you and your administration
will abide by the law in all
circumstances, even during times
of national emergency, and affirming
that you are subject to the same
penalties as any other citizen if
you break the law.
Why should the American Voter trust a candidate who sent us into a war based upon unverified information? This question is mainly directed at those of you who voted to go into Iraq based upon poor information and are now stating we should pull out after we decimated Iraq.
Is there really any way for the US to "simply" withdraw US forces from Iraq at any time in the foreseeable future that will insure that Iraq does not dissolve into internecine warfare between the Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd ethnic groups following said withdrawal? Can diplomacy now really be successfully employed to develop a workable end to the violence given the relative weakness of the current Iraqi government and the depth of the ethnic and sectarian hatreds between the aforementioned ethnic enclaves? What policy or policies can be enacted that will both protect US interests while allowing or, rather, encouraging, the taking of greater responsibility by the Iraqi government for defending against Al Qaeda AND settling differences between the three ethnic enclaves?
If the police burst into a house in some neighborhood saying they believe a drug dealer they were looking for is hiding in the house. While in there, one police officer, thinking he heard a gun shot starts shooting in a direction. The rest of the officers shoot in the direction. In the end, there are no guns in the house and a man, a woman, and a 5 year old boy are dead. They find out that the drug dealer is no where near the house.
In this scenario, I am sure you will agree with me that outrage in the community will be justified. I hope you will agree also that the police officers will at the very least loose their jobs.
I believe this is akin to the situation in Iraq. When George Bush was going to war, he had about 86% approval rating. When Americans got the chance, they rewarded him with another term in office. Won't Iraqis be justified to be angry with Americans? So who are Americans fighting? This sounds like the police in the scenario fighting the community following their raid.
What gets me the most is that over and over again I hear many of these people including Osama Bin Ladin say that they like the American people. It is the policies of the government that they hate. Yet when public officials and reporters are asked "why do they hate us?" They quite often reply that they hate our way of life: missing an opportunity to discuss the flaws in the government's foreign policies and mistakes like the war in Iraq and how they affect ordinary Americans.
Don't you think that as a presidential candidate, you owe it to the people to seriously discuss this issue and the role you have played in it to help the young people to learn the need to pay attention to these issues before they elect their president? And do you think it is helpful to stand by your vote for the war.
In broad terms, what is your plan to disengage the United States from Iraq.
At what level of National threat to the US would you start an action similar to Iraq or Afghanistan?
Is it possible to create or maintain peace without changing someones extremist ideology?
Are you planning to request the congress to extend the PATRIOT Act? Do you believe that many clauses in the PATRIOT act are in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights or not?
There is a problem with American foreign policy it seems that we always pick a wrong side. We supported an Egyptian dictator and we end up with an egyptian terrorist who led 09/11/01 attack on our country. We supported un popular Saudi Regime and recieved the majority of september 11 attackers. We are supporting un popular President of pakistan and prime minster of Ethiopia because they are "helping" us in the fight against terrorist. Can a leader who terroise and torture its own people be a reliable ally on the war on terrorism? Which one is beneficial to US interest in the long term one dictator or 75 million of Ethiopians?
As the annual military budget becomes greater and greater each year with no enemy nation for the United States to confront, while social services such as health care and education are under-performing, do any of the candidates have any intention of balancing the budget so that military is not given priority over vital social programs?
I have heard candidates (and others) say that they would gladly offer their own life in order to avoid the torture of an enemy comabatant. This is a personal choice affecting the volunteer. However, I ask the candidates a variation of this question: Are you willing to sacrifice the life of a child (mine, yours -- it does not matter) in order to keep "enhanced interogation" techniques out of bounds? Our enemy wishes to kill all Americans ("Death to America"), not just our soldiers.
Since many Americans vote based on the fear of change and fear of differences which the Conservatives successfully spin into love of country and God and hate for anything different, how will you convince these fearful voters that you will keep them safe?
Question for Senators Clinton, Dodd, Biden, Obama and Edwards:
At various points, you have supported Congressional resolutions calling upon -- or made your own statements forcefully calling upon -- Iraq (under Saddam Hussein), Iran, and Syria to strictly abide by United Nations Security Council resolutions with which those governments were in non-compliance. To my knowledge, however, none of you have ever called up Israel, Pakistan, Turkey or Morocco to abide by UN Security Council resolutions with which those governments are in non-compliance. Does this mean that you believe that UN Security Council resolutions and other international legal obligations should only apply to governments we don't like and that you reject the universal application of international law?
Knowing that it was America's intervention in Middle Eastern affairs that provoked 9/11 and hatred towards us, why would we ever want to continue and extend our military presence even further?
Do you support this Administration's proposed radar defense system in the Czech Republic and the anti-missile base in Poland? The US Congress recently cut $139 million in the budget for the base; yet this Administration continues to negotiate "under the media radar" with the governments of both countries where the proposed missile defense system will be installed. If this Administration intends to "kick this issue" forward to the future President's Administration. will your Administration move forward with the currently proposed missile defense system; would you support the same system under the auspices of NATO, or do you believe the missile defense system should be abandoned entirely? How would you justify to American voters how their national security interests benefit from building a missile defense system on Czech soil in a nation where over 65% of Czech citizens are opposed to the radar base.
IF you are elected President, will you go back to what our main objective was supposted to be following 9/11 which was to capture Osama Bin Laden? OR will you just let this man go free?
In the past decade, more Americans have been killed in bicycle accidents than from terrorism. How will you draw the line between coercive interrogation techniques and outright torture when confronting the menace of bicycle accidents?
What, if any, responsibility does the U.S. have to the hundreds of thousands of refugees resulting from the war in Iraq?
My question is three parts:
First, why do some of the people of the Middle East seem to hate America, there has to be a reason?
Second, why are we in the Middle East? Third, Is this a War against "terrorists" or a forceful expedition for money, power and resources?
Greetings from Russia,
in our country we had deplorable experience with communism especially with Trotsky's lunacy of export of revolution around the world?
What is the difference between Trotsky's ideas and the necons' ideas of promotion of democracy to the countries of the Middle East which never experienced democracy in their history?
Don't they realize that if you implement in the Arab countries the democratic electoral principle of "one man one vote" the power will be captured in a very democratic way by Muslim fundamentalists. Algiers and Turkey is a case in point. This can even destabilize the regimes friendly to the US i.e. countries like Egypt and Jordan.
Neocons are not stupid, they know all that. Then what is the agenda behind the lunacy of export of democracy?
Under the current administration, the spectre of terrorism has been invoked as a justification for illegal surveillance and a crackdown on dissidents and activists. Torture, renditions and imprisonment without charge have soiled our reputation throughout the world. As president what would you do to restore the liberties of the American people and the confidence of the world?
Have any of you done extensive research on the people of the Middle East, different groups and their religious beliefs? Have any of you tried to understand these people so we can better work with them in the future? If you have done research and or visited their country, what have you learned about them that may help the United States citizens better understand them and their viewpoints? It is very important that we frist understand these people before we just start rearranging their lives don't you think? In addition, what is our goal here? I'm still not sure what our objective is and what "Winning the War" in the Middle East is supposed to look like. Thanks! Angela
American diplomatic history books recount the Monroe Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, and will likely discuss the Bush doctrine. When future historians write of your administration's foreign policy pursuits, what will be noted as the (fill in candidate's name) doctrine and the vision you cast for U.S. diplomatic relations?
I think we should bring the troops back from Iraq. What would you do--bring them back or leave them there?
This Administration has substantially increased our dependance on private contractors, such as Blackwater and Halliburton, to provide essential services for our military and our foreign service. What concrete steps will you take as President to reduce the role of private for-profit contractors in the conduct of American military and foreign affairs?
The belief in an afterlife seems to be a motivating factor in our enemies' willingness to sacrifice the lives of their own to defeat us. Do you believe in an afterlife? If so, would that belief factor into your decision to send young Americans to war?
Dear candidates:
If one of you make office will yyou end the war in Iraq and Afganistan soon?(not saying I'm against it)Also whats you plan if you decide to leave?
Can the USA lead the world, promote democracy, and AT THE SAME TIME refuse to comply with international law?
Please ask each candidate to STATE whether (s)he would as a candidate announce that if elected the USA will comply with international law and ask our allies to do so as well.
If (s)he would exclude any area of law from compliance or any ally from compliance, please identify them and explain why.
Having attempted genocide on Native Americans, denied the vote to women for 135 odd yrs., and denied most everything to blacks for 175 odd yrs., are you going to continue the policy of forcing Quacker Instant Democracy on other soveriegn nations while bankrupting ours?
If you were elected president how long would you keep our troops in Iraq?
For Governor Richardson: You have advocated withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq more rapidly than most other candidates, who have said they fear "chaos in Iraq" if we withdraw too quickly. How would you avoid that "chaos" while still achieving the more rapid pull-out which you advocate?
What will you do to ensure that decisions of the United States government do not reflect poorly on the innocent citizens who happen to have been born here?
A question for all candidate at the NPR Iowa Debate --
In your Administration what attitude would the Department of Justice take toward former high U.S. officials who may have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity -- such as authorizing torture -- or crimes againt peace -- such as levying non-defemsive war-of-choice against, for example, Iraq?
There are many civillian interrogators of so-called "enemy combatants" from CIA agents to private contractors. They are not lawyers. They are told by the President that they cannot "torture". But, the President refuses to define "torture". Tell these government workers your definition of "torture" without simply "begging the question" by using the word "torture" in your answer. Define in simple terms what they cannot do so as to prevent them from being considered "torturers" and "war criminals".
In reading about World War 1, WWII, the Korean War, and Vietnam, it has become clear to me that whenever we have liberated or occupied other countries we have made the mistake of inflicting our own political agenda on the native people without allowing the 'liberated' people to set the goals for their country themselves along with being the actual planners of their country's future. It was a huge mistake in Germany, it created the Berlin Wall perpetuating the Cold War, our control devastated the Koreans after WWII and continued their devastation into the Korean War. Vietnam needs no explanation. Why haven't we learned from this? We have done the same thing in Iraq. The Coalition Provisional Association created a quagmire and a new enemy by not allowing the Iraqi's to take the lead in decisions about their country! What can we do to stop this behavior in the future and how can we reinvent ourselves so that we gain respect again as a compassionate respectful nation?
What is your plan, as president, to bring about peace in our nation and in the world? (Please be honest if you do not have a plan to actively pursue peacemaking.)
In his 2005 book, "The End of Poverty", economist Jeffrey Sachs stated, ???The United States is spending thirty times more on the military than on foreign assistance in 2004, $450 billion compared with $15 billion.???
He then goes on to say, ???Hard evidence has established strong linkages between extreme poverty abroad and the threats to national security.???
Do you believe that the United States would be better off improving national security by helping poor nations through increased foreign assistance, rather than spending this amount of money on fighting wars?
President Roosevelt fampous;ly said, 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself." The current administration seems to want to frighten us to death, taking off shoes at the airport when the shoe bombs didn't and don't work, flhing a diffenet level of fear we shojuld have every day. the tyranny of the TSA.
How will you go about cleaniong up this mess and restoriong President Roosevelt's common sense to America?
REGARDING IRAQ SPENDING
in response to the Congressional Democrats actipon on war funding:
When his latest request for funds were denied Secretary Gates announced cutbacks at military bases espescially civilian conractors, and put the money into the War.
Obvipously this is an attempt top broing pressure on Congress, could be considered reverse pork barrelling. But iof he can make these closures, do you not feel the Pentagon budget is unnecessiarly high?
Should Secretary Gates be impeached for misapproptiating the money and diverting it into a program not Congressionally approved?
Cuba was once seen as a national security threat.With the recent discovery of ample offshore oil in Cuba and the potential of many useful exchanges how would each of you as President deal with the current embargo or blockade as it may have outlived its original purpose.
The "911 Commission Report" was a complete cover-up. What do you intend to do to rectify this situation and bring out the truth.
Iran has, to our knowledge, no nuclear weapons and is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel, however, almost certainly does have nuclear weapons, though it has not admitted it, and has not signed the NPT. Therefore, if Iran is indeed pursuing these weapons then it is not starting a Middle East arms race, it is joining one. According to what I've read, Ahmedinejad's comment about "wiping Israel off the map" is propaganda based on a mistranslation.
In light of these facts, what is the criteria you would apply to which countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, and by what right do you claim the authority to make that decision?
As a follow-up, which theoretical regime should the United States support: a pro-American military dictatorship, or a democratically elected anti-American government? Does the answer to this question change if the c