ask.com

The Wasted-Chance Debate Last Night

Posted April 17, 2008 | 03:57 PM (EST)

Read More: 2008 Election, ABC News, Democratic Primary, Ptsd, Traumatic Brain Injury, Veterans, Breaking Politics News

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

I'm not bitter, I'm livid.

I didn't bother watching the debate last night, because I knew what was coming. Each and every time we have our candidates in the same place at the same time, it's one big game of stupid. Flag pins? Tuzla? Who the hell cares? Distractions like this are what got us into Iraq in the first place -- a media unwilling to do the tough reporting or ask the tough questions, and instead getting caught up in the emotion of the moment.

Yesterday a major new report was released by Rand Corporation. It found, according to USA Today:

Roughly one in five U.S. troops is suffering from major depression or post-traumatic stress from serving in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and an equal number have suffered brain injuries, a new study estimates.


Only about half of them have sought treatment...

Rand described this, rightfully, as a major health crisis among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.
Where was the question about that? You think that ABC could nix one question about pointless stupidity, and ask the candidates what they would do about this crisis. I know we veterans would have sure appreciated it.

The excuse from pundits stepping up to defend ABC is that, well, we've had 20 debates and we've gone over all the issues, and people don't want to hear it anymore.

Oh really? I don't remember any debate where we talked seriously about when it is proper and not proper to deploy our military. Are we going to continue preemption and nation building? Is there any situation where that might be called for? I haven't heard that question asked in a debate.

Have we talked about the GI Bill in the debates? What other benefits for veterans would they increase or decrease, and by what amounts?

How do they propose, with the budget crunch, to ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs is fully-funded?

There are, literally, dozens of hours of debate that we have not had on troops' and veterans' issues alone, because no one wants to ask the questions. ABC had a chance to, last night, in what could be the final Democratic debate. They could have run the gamut of issues that haven't been talked about in any debate, but are critically important to Pennsylvania and the nation.

Instead, we're stuck with an hour on pointless games, and no answers. Thanks a lot.

 

Comments
47
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
collapse MNfreeze See Profile I'm a Fan of MNfreeze

Let me see if I've got this straight.

1. Obama serves on charitable a board w/Ayers; Ayers gave $200 to Obama's state senate campaign and held a "meet and greet" at his house in 1995. They live in the same neighborhood and are "friendly".

2. Hillary regularly attends a small secretive religious group known as "The Family", headed by a man named Doug Coe. In his preaching, Coe repeatedly urges a personal commitment to Jesus Christ by encouraging his followers to have the same blind devotion that Adolph Hitler, Mao and Lenin demanded from their followers.

http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/03/857959.aspx?p=1

3. George Bush Sr. has extensive business connections with the Bin Laden group, owned by the Bin Laden family. One of the members of the Bin Laden family, a guy named Osama, is responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 American citizens.

You see where the guilt by association can get you? Do I think Bush Sr, Jr. or Jim Baker condoned or were connected to the actions of 9/11? No. Does anyone believe Hillary Clinton supports the Nazi leanings (or at least ambivalence) of the person she calls her "spiritual mentor". Of course not. Does Obama support Weathermen ideology? Ridiculous!!!

The leading of Obama has been Sean Hannity. Has anyone asked him about his "friendly" relationship with a leader of the Aryan Nation?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050620/blumenthal

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:07 PM on 04/18/2008
collapse Stirner See Profile I'm a Fan of Stirner

If people wanted (which they really don't) a political debate then how about having Ron Paul moderate? At least he, unlike Hillary or Obama, knows that the policies of the Federal Reserve are more important to the nation that whether or not Obama wears a flag pin in his lapel or Hillary ducked sniper fire. Expectedly, the "debate" was the usual clutter of superficial fluff that we have been hearing since the end of last year. The talking heads, controlled by such media hustlers as Rupert Murdock, have steadily debased the quality of our political life -- so the Hillary/Obama debate was quite in order -- and quite mediocre. Perfect for ratings.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:37 PM on 04/18/2008
collapse standforpeace See Profile I'm a Fan of standforpeace

The low point of the debate (and that's saying a lot) came when George asked Obama if Reverend Wright "loved" America. It had to be the most asinine and complettly irrelevant question I've ever heard asked of a presidential candidate by a journalist (sort of a mean spirited version of boxers or briefs, which as you'll recall was asked by a talk show host not a journalist). I personally have no idea whether Wright "loves" his country; what I do know is that I'm sick and tired of the attitude that equates criticism with hatred. I also wonder how a slickster like George could question the loyalty of a veteran who has spent his life improving the lives of some of the worst off Americans on the South Side of Chicago. Most of all, I wonder how that question could possibly hep the voters decide who would make the better candidate for president.

For George and all the rest, how about you do your damn job which is to investigate and report and ask the hard and relevant questions so that the American people can make informed choices about our next president?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:03 PM on 04/18/2008
collapse mayzee See Profile I'm a Fan of mayzee

Why is it that no one is mentioning what Hillary said during the debate...that with her at the helm, US will be at the ready to intervene in any and all conflicts in the Middle East.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:50 AM on 04/18/2008
collapse Paratus See Profile I'm a Fan of Paratus

If Hillary and Hussein cannot handle ANY type of question then perhaps they should rethink their candidacy. I don't know where the idea comes from that Democrat candidates are releived from a certain "type" of question, perhaps ABC should have sought approval form both parties before the debate that way they can look stronger and not so foolish.(sarcasm intended). I listened to the entire debate on the radio. I was not impressed by either Hillary or Husssein. I was glad these questions were asked. Interesting to see how both of them react and think on their feet.
The debate reinforced my feeling about both candidates. HIllary is a genectically hardwired marxist incapable of telling the truth. We don't need a marxist in that office. Bad for the country. Bad for freedom.
Since Hussein seems to like voting "present" in in the Senate and also when he was in the state legislater in Illinois, has no real experience in the international arena, doesn't really have a legacy on Capital HIll we need to look at his cosicl background to develop a profile. The good reverend Wright is a looney. No other way to put it. He is as nutty as Louis Farrakhan. HIs positions on legislation, his communist associations in his past and his stance on the Bill of Rights lead me to believe that he is a great danger to this country.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:28 AM on 04/18/2008
collapse wolf58 See Profile I'm a Fan of wolf58

Its a sad state of affairs when people care more about flag pins over those soldiers who fight and protect those who worry about flag pins.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:28 AM on 04/18/2008
collapse ProgressiveBum See Profile I'm a Fan of ProgressiveBum

Thank you Jon!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:40 AM on 04/18/2008
collapse hopelessobama See Profile I'm a Fan of hopelessobama

distractions? let me ask you if john mccain had befriended a radical who used to bomb abortion clinics and said he wished he had done more, would it be an issue? would it get brushed under the rug? your side is growing more ridiculous every day. its to the point where barack acts like 'how dare they ask me, saint barack' a question. who do you people think you are? you think you are above answering for your decisions, associations, advisors, mentors, and friends? barack may be the next president, and most people can't name a single accomplishment this man has made in government. that is astonishing. and it is the result of reporters to scared to question the sainted one. well free ride is over barry, buckle up, because you will have to answer these questions sooner or later.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:33 AM on 04/18/2008
collapse simplify See Profile I'm a Fan of simplify

Hopeless you are, but you sound bitter as well. Maybe the candidate of your choice isnt winning. Now go cry in the corner.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:07 AM on 04/18/2008
collapse Safire See Profile I'm a Fan of Safire

You don't care to know what Senator Obama has accomplished. Period.

You know, regardless of our biases, we can find something good in everyone!

Saint Barack? How about St. McCain? I for one, setting aside the many FLIP FLOPS this man has
made, any man, who would treat his ex-wife the way he did, well, I guess he is not perfect either. But what about Mr. McCain's associations? Oh, I forgot he is a Saint! He will save us!

My bottom line. Any Veteran who has walked in the shoes of his veteran brothers, should NEVER consider, yet vote against BENEFITS for his brothers in arms. Keep 'em down to keep 'em in!

So, whatever, Barack is not perfect, and he has not spent 25 - 35 years mired in the slime of Washington, that if at one point seemed objectionable, he has flipped to whichever stance will appease the Right Wing and make him acceptable to them.

You have your opinion, I have mine. Your argument is lame, period. Any, yes ANY association that Barack has, or has had, PALES in comparison to what is already known about the McCain and the Clintons.

So, keep on voting against your own economic interests.

Barack 08

P.S. Who do you think you are? Remember when pointing one finger, 4 are pointing right back at you!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:32 AM on 04/18/2008
collapse jsinclair See Profile I'm a Fan of jsinclair

Why doesn't anyone ask Stephanopoulos if anyone in the Clinton campaign fed him questions in advance?

He is buddies with the sleazy James Carville (who, with Stephanopoulos, masterminded Clinton's 1992 election). And he served with Bill until 1996--first as press secretary, then as his "senior policy advisor".

DID Carville, Bill, and/or any other Clinton surrogates urge George to ask those questions? Seeing how they operate I would be SHOCKED if they didn't.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:07 AM on 04/18/2008
collapse Soothsayer08 See Profile I'm a Fan of Soothsayer08

Yesterday a tape of George Stephanopolos was played in which he was talking to Sean Hannity about the Ayers question and George told him he was taking notes.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:47 AM on 04/18/2008
collapse fizzwizz See Profile I'm a Fan of fizzwizz

Clinton or Obama should have been strong and said something like, "You are talking to the next President of the United States. Ask me a SERIOUS question." Imagine the effect. I would have changed my vote if one of them had stood up for reality like that. Hell, I might even vote for McCain if he did. (But probably not!)

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:33 AM on 04/18/2008
collapse shades3 See Profile I'm a Fan of shades3

Thank you Jon for reminding us that the Presidential Election is not a reality show with lovely parting gifts and questions about..................................................nothing important.

The economy is tanking. The dollar is dropping. Over 4,000 American soldiers have died, many times more horribly wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens dead. Lies, lies and more lies have been foisted on the country by the Bush Administration, and the war that was predicated on lies and greed continues.

Meanwhile, the moderators of this "debate" care about flag pins, preacher's words and other fringe issues.
How can anyone call what happened a DEBATE???
PITIFUL.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:24 AM on 04/18/2008
collapse lboucher See Profile I'm a Fan of lboucher

Just how bad was Barack Obama's debate performance last night? Not as bad as Britney Spears' song-and-dance routine at the MTV Awards. Not as bad as Bill Buckner's legendary error during the '86 World Series. Not as bad as Bob Dylan's music during his God phase. Not as bad as John Travolta's Scientology cinema experiment in Battlefield Earth. Not as bad as Mike Dukakis' fateful ride in a military tank.

In other words, Obama could have done worse.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:44 AM on 04/18/2008
collapse OttoF See Profile I'm a Fan of OttoF

Actually, what got us stuck in Iraq was that America fell for the games and elected the wrong President. That's why the games are so important. That's why millions and millions are spent on playing games. If you believe the games, you have one candidate who will bring a new kind of politics that is without games, and people will find it so attractive they will elect him. Or if you believe the other game, you have a candidate who is able to play the games as they exist, and is so tough, and so good at it that she will be elected. As I've yet to see the first candidate actually play a new kind of politics without games, I've decided I like her game better.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:39 PM on 04/17/2008
collapse NelsonR See Profile I'm a Fan of NelsonR

The debate was a farce. Did anyone else notice the continuous T.V. coverage of Chelsea Clinton in the audience? It occurred so often I thought she was going to address how she landed that job on Wall Street that pays a mere 160,000 dollars a year. Glad everybody on this blog makes that amount. It's called, cronyism, elitism and having parents that are owed loads of favors for favors given at America's expense.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:28 PM on 04/17/2008
collapse deminmo See Profile I'm a Fan of deminmo

Questions like:
What will you do as President if we end up in a war
with Iran?
Why can't we get the new GI Bill through?
Why are injured soldiers rotated back into active duty?
Why aren't you both pushing for impeachment hearings?
Why aren't you both pushing for investigations into what
was known about al Qaeda cells in the US before 9/11,
and why information was not shared?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:24 PM on 04/17/2008
collapse larry278 See Profile I'm a Fan of larry278

Could it be that no questions about veterans issues are being asked of the candidates for the USA plans to discard this generation of war veterans as it did with the vets of Korea & 'Nam? It could be a tacit bi-partisan policy & a tradition.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:42 PM on 04/17/2008
collapse CindyV See Profile I'm a Fan of CindyV

If Obama can't answer the the light questions, how can he answer the serious ones? Obama did poorly last night because he couldn't answer the questions. If he's the nominee, the rethuglicans are going to make mincemeat out of him. Lord help us all.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:29 PM on 04/17/2008
collapse Mack20 See Profile I'm a Fan of Mack20

I thought all you demorats were atheists? Sorry, but God is on our side. Keep praying to your global warming god! Maybe IT will listen to you.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:48 PM on 04/17/2008
collapse cheforacle See Profile I'm a Fan of cheforacle

That is a complete canard. A debate betweemMc cain and Obama on issues will be more robust because the differences are more stark and McCain - and right-wingers in general haven' been pressed on their positions in years.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:21 PM on 04/17/2008
collapse CitizenLegislatorCC See Profile I'm a Fan of CitizenLegislatorCC

Thanks, Jon. I concur completely with your sentiments.

It's really something being powerless in a supposed representative democracy, isn't it? I'm despairing for our Republic:

Nancy Pelosi, today at her weekly news conference, paraphrased:

'To fulfill our most important duty to protect the American people.'

'So as to protect our national interests wherever they are.'

Those two statements, uttered basically as afterthoughts - by the same woman who refuses to allow justice to be done on behalf of the exploited American people - define "American Empire," and spit in the face of a limited federal Constitutional Republic determined to live and let live, and to preserve liberty at all costs. I spit with contempt at both sentiments by the Speaker.

No legislative body full of amoral politicians, and no Executive Branch cherry-picking Generals who are impervious to the inherent moral hazard of their occupation, will EVER "protect" or safeguard me or other Americans, if what has transpired the last 7 years is defined as "protection." What a sick, deluded racket, absolutely impervious to our Constitution, our federal government has become.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:15 PM on 04/17/2008
collapse CitizenLegislatorCC See Profile I'm a Fan of CitizenLegislatorCC

Pelosi continued:

'I had breakfast this morning with Defense Secretary Gates to discuss Iraq.'

How nice for her.

'I was at the White House last night, at the invitation of the president' [to show off my Catholic faith like a shiny bauble and bask in the glow of my own self-defined piety].

Ask the U.S.-terrorized Iraqi people for a response to that.

Barack Obama, yesterday:

"The Commander in Chief sets the mission [in Iraq]."

Oh, really?

These two public servants - one an extremely powerful Speaker of the House, the other a Senator (and allegedly a former Constitutional law professor) hoping to be president - are collaborating with those corporations with a vested interest in pretending that our Constitution does NOT vest the immense power and responsibility "to declare [and set limits on] War" in our LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ALONE. You can look it up. I dare worshippers of Der Leader to do so.

The military (and political party) hierarchy of command ain't how democratic government is done.

So thanks anyway, Pelosi, Reid, McCain, Clinton & Obama, but I think we've all had - most grievously the American boots on the ground in, and people of, Iraq - just about as much military-industrial-Congressional-serving national "security protection" as we can take, at the cost of our military's lives and health and our taxpayers' unwillingly mortgaged futures.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:48 PM on 04/17/2008
collapse cheforacle See Profile I'm a Fan of cheforacle

No your view is incorrect. Congress's role is to declare a war and then the President is in charge of setting the mission. For instance, in WWII, when the Constitutional scheme was followed, Congress declared war the day after Pearl Harbor. Once that was done, FDR set the mission and ran the war. The Legislature appropriated the funds and oversaw the spending. The President decided when and where to engage in the various theaters of war. And the generals followed the orders. FDR was intimately involved in the general decision-making and planning of missions along with Churchhill.

After WWII with nukes at our disposal, the President took more power. Then in '73 came the War Powers Act which, in my view, concurrently enabled and limited the President's hand. The Iraq War represented an abysmal breach of the constitutional scheme as congress granted prospective power to wage war based on a condition that was never satisfied by any objective criteria: whether Saddam cooperated with inspectors. Bush made the decision without ever making a case that the inspectors were barred from the performance of their duties or, of course that any WMDs had been found.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:30 PM on 04/17/2008
collapse CitizenLegislatorCC See Profile I'm a Fan of CitizenLegislatorCC

The War Powers Act was a laudable attempt to rein in the president, after the travesty of Vietnam, but it in no way amended the Constitution.

The word "mission" needs to be defined here. "War" is inherently a "mission." If you read the rest of Obama's answer, he broadened "mission" to include removing our troops from Iraq - in effect, ending the occupation/military force. That's CONGRESS'S role, absent a peace treaty or truce - and it is absolutely NOT something that needs to be held hostage to presidential will. That's my point.

FDR was fulfilling the "mission" that CONGRESS gave him - to defeat Germany and Japan. But Harry Truman with his unilateral Korean "police action" indeed UNConstitutionally "took more power" for the presidency.

Certainly the FUNCTION of being the civilian Armed Forces "Commander in Chief" is to direct the military and to strategize with them in pursuit of the overall "mission" Congress has authorized. If that is what Obama was referencing, that's fine. But his answer seemed broader than that, and his actions as a Senator bely an understanding of the VITAL, plenary role of Congress in declaring, changing, limiting, and ending war. It is NOT the function of the CinC to, say, 'broaden' a war into Iran on his own say so, as part of the Iraq "mission" he is intended to be EXECUTING with Congressional authority.

True - Congress outrageously abdicated (Juan Cole's apt word) its Constitutional role by ceding the DECISION to invade Iraq to the

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:47 AM on 04/18/2008
collapse CitizenLegislatorCC See Profile I'm a Fan of CitizenLegislatorCC

Let me try that last sentence again, including the missing word:

...True - Congress outrageously abdicated (Juan Cole's apt word) its Constitutional role by ceding the DECISION to invade Iraq to the PRESIDENT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/opinion/07cuomo.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Thus, we are way, way down the slippery slope toward a presidential war-making tyranny that the Founders worked diligently to prevent with their checks and balances and separation of powers. As of "Mission Accomplished" in 2003, or shortly thereafter, Congress should have withdrawn its authority to use military force in Iraq, unilaterally if need be, and fought it out in the courts if the president disobeyed their will.

In that regard, however, a vitally important unanswered question remains:

Do our Members of Congress KNOW that they are being lied to about Iraq by the administration witnesses before them and join them in that depraved deceit, or are Members of Congress simply willing victims of false information about Iraq, at our expense, as a result of the moral hazard of incurring no personal price or burden for their ignorance or naivete about what is being done to Iraq in our names?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:12 AM on 04/18/2008
collapse addie24 See Profile I'm a Fan of addie24

Wow....I wonder if there is any truth to the rumour that Hillary had a list of questions that were going to be asked Senotor Obama before the debate...............................

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:09 PM on 04/17/2008
collapse cct1984 See Profile I'm a Fan of cct1984

Jon, do you seriously believe that either candidate is going to say anything of substance and specificity, in regards to any of the issues you have highlighted? Get real, all you're going to get is a bunch of euphemistic language and generalized platitudes that don't say anything, because neither candidate wants to say anything controversial or they may be held accountable for. On the "issues," you're not going to hear anything that you haven't heard a hundred times before.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:43 PM on 04/17/2008
collapse humuhumunukunukuapuaa See Profile I'm a Fan of humuhumunukunukuapuaa

Mainstream Media is all about Flag Lapel Pins, not Flag-Draped Coffins.

God help us all.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:30 PM on 04/17/2008
collapse Betsy See Profile I'm a Fan of Betsy

FYI...the flags draped over the coffins of our fallen troops were made in Communist China......How's that for a great big kick in the ass to those who risk life and limb for this country!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:48 AM on 04/18/2008
collapse AnotherMcIntosh See Profile I'm a Fan of AnotherMcIntosh

You have a right to be livid.

We all do.

The MSM is playing us, all of us.

The only saving grace was that Gibson-Stephanopoulis show was so pathetic that even they are aware of it.

The Bush Administration, with the help of both Republicans and go-along Democrats, are ruining our military. Those who control the MSM could care less, and they are.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:51 PM on 04/17/2008
collapse apcalc See Profile I'm a Fan of apcalc

I haven't heard you compiaining when Matthews, Olbermann, Russert, Blitzer, et al have unfairly treated Hillary while Barack got a pass.

Believe me, my heart bleeds for you.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:36 PM on 04/17/2008
collapse scepticalobserver See Profile I'm a Fan of scepticalobserver

Well said, Mr Soltz. When we are in the middle of two wars, with troops living, dying, and both they and their families paying the brunt of the costs for our policies, those troops deserve better than a "gotcha" debate.
Not spin, platitudes or generalities.

The war, America's foreign policies and all veterans issues deserve a public hearing, with questions posed by those who are fighting and those who have lost loved ones in this fight. Those who actually have to bear the weight for the decisions being made.
That we haven't had such a debate is a disgrace.

A diary on dKos by deOliver47 linked to a comment on TPM by Eric Mclure, who is currently serving in Iraq.
You might want to give it a read.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/a-diamond-in-the-debate-rough.php

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:45 PM on 04/17/2008
collapse ljsfolly See Profile I'm a Fan of ljsfolly

McCain has made it clear he will not support a new GI bill which on face value makes no sense when he has always played the POW military supporter war mongering man. The amount of mental health care for our soldiers just has the bodies adding up for the suicides and that is the soldiers not the families at home. No much if any support for these people who have substandard equipment to fight and use in the middle east and and just sent back again and again with worse odds of making it back alive and mentally ok. To not even offer these people who risk their life an limbs a chance to a better life when they do get out of the military is just a part of the anger I feel. And yet who is talking and who left it out of last nigts debate ABC?