YouTube Democratic Debate: Tough Questions From Mother Of Soldier Deployed To Iraq
By Logan Murphy Sunday Jul 22, 2007 8:33pm
The mother of a soldier who is on his second tour in Iraq brought the heat to the Democratic candidates. She asks the candidates if the Democrats are putting "politics before conscience" in failing to fight harder to end the occupation of Iraq. She points out that more than 800 members of the military service have died waiting for them to get serious. This was a fantastic question and one of the best questions that could have been asked at this debate.
Login or Register to post comments.
best clip soo far.
Turn the heat up higher and keep it to their feet. No mercy, no retreat.
Support the troops=Bring them home NOW!
Lets see Anderson Pooper and crew do this to the Repuglicans. Lets see if CNN will make them look like the asshats they are.
Ordinary citizens on YouTube ask questions that professional "journalists" can't think to ask.
Kucinich, of course, is right. The Democrats cannot claim that they oppose they war and that they support the troops if they do not defund the war. They have the power to end this unnecessary occupation and yet they refuse to act. As that mother correctly points out, the Democrats are placing "politics before conscience."
Anderson, Wolf, doesn't matter who hosts the debates, because if it's on CNN only Obama, Hilary and John get the questions.
Please explain to everyone here how the Democrats have the power to end the war if they don't have the numbers in Congress to override Bush's vetoes or to successfully impeach him in a Senate trial?
Looks like Hillary spent more thought on that pound of makeup on her mug than considering what the mandate given to her and her colleagues back in november was.
They should enlarge the video and get rid of the CNN logos.
Other than that, it was pretty cool.
Kucinich is the best candidate and would make the best president. People complain about the gutless Democrats; I think it's got a lot to do with gutless voters. Don't support the candidate you think will win--Hillary, Obama, whoever. . . . Support the man with the cajones to be on the right side of every issue every time. Kucinich is right on Iraq, he's right on the environment, he's right on health care, he's right on protecting the vote. He is the man.
St. Vitus @ 4:
You are right but, CNN are the ones who chose the questions that appeared. There were over 3,000 U-tube entries. The chose a large amount of them that might have been the same as what they would ask. Other hard questions were left out.
Capt. Bat Guano @ 8:
And the other candidates weren't wearing a pound of makeup?
We can't expect the candidates to stick with the issues when so many of the voters focus on the superficial.
Yes, that is why I support Dennis Kuchinich. be he was against the war even before I was against it!
Thats leadership!
And, he presented an Biil for impeahment. That was the right thing to do.
Ron @ 11:
That is very well-taken. Thanks for the insight. Imagine the questions without the mediation of CNN. It could be wide-open!
hillary should have been shut up and booed!! as she was the one who said two months ago, she can see the troops in iraq for another ten yrs!!!!!!!!
i think biden did well,, dennis better and obama,, kind of leaning in the middle, just to make sure hes covering his ass.
wait,, that goes for all of the canidates. shame mike bloomberg wasint invited !!!!!
None of them really answered the question.
The question was "are you putting politics over conscience?" The answer is obviously yes, though none of them had the balls to say it.
My question for Hillary Clinton:
If you are elected President, will you have George W.Bush and Dick Cheney arrested?
Thank You.
The only difference may be that a mother of a soldier is asking why the democrats can't/won't end the Iraq mess so that is noteworthy. We, the bloggers, have demanded withdrawal for a long, long time.
i dont think this will go down in history via the net. More like ok we tried we failed and f-it
For cnn to self whore their assests/youtube/ and make it live,, do you just how much money it made tonight?????????????
ANYONE??
God I hope I don't have to choose between another Clinton and a Republican.
Nothing genuine.
Friar Tuck @ 19:
Well, can you tell me WHICH SPONSERS they had tonight?
That should answer at least part of you question. Personally I don't remeber any of them. lol
did you hear Cindy Sheehan was arrested?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/4992059.html
Tigerwong @ 16:
Yeah. So far, they're out "Gordon Smithing" Gordon Smith.
Both parties are in trouble...a really good, well organized 3rd party or "Dark Horse" candidate could win it all as the country does not seem to be buying their (MSM) message ...yet.
Kucinich has my vote.
That was indeed a very good question. There were a few other questions like that: hard-hitting ones that came from people directly affected. There was also a lot of fluff. It was like they were promoting youtube as this wacky eclectic website, and certainly much of their content fits that description, but for the purposes of a debate they should have stuck to substantive questions. I felt like they were trying to entertain more than get into the issues.
I would have asked,, ppl running for prez,, just why is it that cost of living is rising in the states and jobs are gone?
also, why is it that the passport system is back logged and chuck shumer has introduced a bill to LET AMERICANS out of america.
another ?? for you to is this,, JUST what ever happend to the idea of holding the president to the fire when he messes up. and dont give us ear marks,, benchmarks and water marks etiher please. Its called a question , please dont dance our night away,,,,,,just answer the question NOW!!!
and another question,, WHY ARE THE LOBBYIST still in washington,, via a loophole and the dems and repubs,, getting around that as well?
millions dollars raised yet,, no gay marrige law,, no money being spent to help rebuild the gulf states etc,,
and yawnnnnnnnnnnn we heard it all befour but the 100 day promise is gone.
comments canidates?
Please explain to everyone here how the Democrats have the power to end the war if they don’t have the numbers in Congress to override Bush’s vetoes or to successfully impeach him in a Senate trial?
Another tactic is to not pass a war funding bill. But the Dems are not going to do this.
The invasion of Cambodia sparked nationwide U.S. protests. Four students were killed by National Guardsmen at Kent State University during a protest in Ohio, which provoked public outrage in the United States. The reaction to the incident by the Nixon administration was seen as callous and indifferent, providing additional impetus for the anti-war movement. Nixon was taken to Camp David for his own safety. [87]
In 1971, the Pentagon Papers were leaked to the New York Times. The top-secret history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, commissioned by the Department of Defense, detailed a long series of public deceptions. The Supreme Court ruled that its publication was legal.[88][deleted]
Sorry, that's just too long. If you have a link, please post it. Thanks.
Sorry to hog the comment part ,, Ok C&L folks tiss my time to head off to work here in germany.
thanks for a great time here and have a good one too.
regards,
The Baker.
I was disappointed by the answers. They answered the larger question, but neglected to slam down the question that was actually asked. Are Dems playing politics in not ending the war? "No, ma'am. It is the Repubs that are. They care more about protecting George W. Bush than they do with doing right by our soldiers and marines."
On second thought, I withdraw this comment. If they really said that, it'll come across as playing politics, regardless of how true it may be. It will be certainly reported that way by CNN. So I guess it is our job to say that, not theirs.
sloganeer @ 30:
Tigerwong @ 16:
Kucinich had the cajones to answer; you weren't listening to his answer. Kucinich said, Yes!!! And he gave us the antidote--quit funding the war. He has been working to defund the war. He is the man.
If the democrats don't cut of funding for the war and impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney for violating their oaths of office the war will go on. Every day American soldiers fulfill the oath of allegiance they took to the constitution with their lives. Demanding that members of congress discharge the same oath by bringing articles of impeachment and ending the war requires much less.
Kucinich is the only one who answered the question. He said Yes and he is right. The Dems are playing politics in that they are not going to do anything to stop what is going on in hopes that it will win them the election in 2008. Bad news for them is this will most likely backfire because they will be seen for what they are. The do nothing democrats.
They all failed in their answers, the only answer now is deeds not words
[...] Link to Article youtube YouTube Democratic Debate: Tough Questions From Mother Of Soldier Deployed [...]
Kucinich did answer the question, and I was also happy with Richardson's answer. In the case of Richardson, he didn't say whether the Dems are playing politics, but since he is not currently a member of Congress where he can directly influence what is done there, his answer that he would bring all the troops home by the end of this year did make clear where he stands.
This week The wicked witch of the west-Pelosi was asked again if she would re-consider Impeachment---Answer no,cause there is more important things to be done--Global warming and Health Care.
And the Wicked Witch of the East Hellary--what a liar-just pure B.S. venom.
I admire the mother. She did a great job
I wish that KO at MSNBC would hold a debate on Foreign Policy only. We really do need to know where the candidates stand on crucial issues given the fact that there are so many challenges that lie ahead and most importantly, how do they plan on reparing and restoring America's standing in the world. The limit of our military might is now on display and we need to know that the rest of the world can rely and trust our judgments.
Tigerwong @ 16:
Well said. Who would dare nowadays to promote a courageous, affirmative stand that involved some risk over cop-out political expediency? Do the right thing? Why that's for other people.
Many of the questions were important, especially this one, and the debate's format was a success because it presented a new and interesting format for political discussion which relies on public participation. However, I still think it overlooks some issues which although they are important, may not be hot button issues or ones that the candidates have prepared for; which is what I was hoping for in this debate. For example, an issue that seems to be at the heart of many of the most hotly debated topics is global poverty. Immigration, terrorism, and national security are very important issues facing our country and get much attention, but global poverty is the thread that connects them all. It would be nice to hear the candidates’ opinions on this issue.
Guy Fawkes @ 7:
The war has been funded for some time now with EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTALS.
Democrats don't even need to vote to stop war funding, all they have to do is STOP voting for Emergency Supplementals that keep the war going.
They had their chance, but instead decided to give Chimpy and their special interest supporters an EXTRA 30 mil. in the last supplemental.
Barbara @ 10:
AMEN AMEN AMEN there is no doubt Kucinich is the best candidate but has no chance. All of his answers were the most logical and sane not nuanced like the top tier. Why is it the man with the most solutions and real plans to solve the very real problems that face our country and the world is seen as extreme. I loved his answer on gay marriage, reparations, the Iraq war, NAFTA etc.,etc.,etc. I have actually gone to all of the candidates web sites and only Kucinich has real solutions and does not speak in generalities but in actual specifics.
Tigerwong @ 16:
They don't have the balls to say it because they don't have the balls to do what needs to be done.
What we have is four Senate eunuchs. If Kucinich were in the Senate, would things be any different?
Just think how many more questions could have been asked if the stupid campaign commercials had been eliminated.
Shocking-an honest politician with a conscience.
Thank you, Dennis Kucinich
[deleted--please consult the commenting policy. Posts made with the intent to insult or incite a flame war are subject to editing/deletion.]
Kucinich the man!
It is interesting to note that among scholars of city managers and urban planner would vote for Kucinich. People who study govt for their career look at Kucinich. The common people look at Kucinich Face and judge him to not look like he got a $400 haircut.
Pelosi says no to impeachment and say that we need to concentrate on ending the war, and apparently was distracted into voting to keep funding the war. Maybe she needs to sharpen her thinking skills doing crossword puzzle, what is a 11-letter word for ending the fiasco of the last 2 presidental term. I-M-P-E-A-C-H-M-E-N-T!
Someone ask how can the Democrats end the war when they don't have enough votes?
True! we don't have enough vote to get anything pass, but we do have enough vote to not pass anything. When funding the war came up for a vote, and the power of not passing it was in our grasp. They all pass it! Hillary was for the war until she was against it, and she proved it twice. They argue that by not funding the war would put the soldiers in harms way, as oppose to being in harms way with the funding.
to bad kucinich is not "serious" but the other empty suits like clinton are.
Barbara @ 10:
Damn straight. Comment of the night.
Marty @ 20:
Or worth voting for. That's what Repubs are counting on.
Anderson Cooper is fucking annoying! I hate how he cuts Kucinich off. What a putz!
I'm sorry, but if you think that there's no difference between a Clinton and a Republican you simply haven't been paying attention these past seven years.
giving a candidate 30 seconds to respond to this question is ABSURD!
and it says a lot about this country.....we are STUPID.
I've got to say that they are all right on this. Just wait a minute I/m not going into Republican diphtheria.
Commonality- ending the war.
Division-how and when And this division is greater within the Full Senate and the House) not just the
candidates.
One small reason- Is not that they will fight us here or that genocide will follow our redeployment.
It is the unsavory instability of the entire region Bush and his Adm has incurred on this part of the world. From Pakistan to Israel to Dar fur to iran to india to egypt and back to Afghanistan.
We may have to settle for a redeployment out of the civil war and then from the region. I do not care at all that we fight a civil war for Iraq. If they have to, Well we did and it was bloody well worth it.!
Bush does not seem to work well with all the neighbors in the region and it is most likely his hopes of the oil PSA's. I think that is in the way. We can withdraw some to the north with the Kurds to keep militants from entering the north and for that matter the country for initial redeployment. From there with some stability we can leave.
Please believe me when I say, I am very impatient on getting our military out.
Let Bush, Cheney Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater, kaki stay. And let Bush and Cheney use their own personal fortunes to fund their oil expeditions..................................................
Dennis Kucinich is the man. The only man with a sane solution to ending the war and is not afraid to do it.
Tigerwong @ 16:
Actually, I think Bill richardson did.
Kucinich!!!!Growin on me.
Howard Beale @ 58:
No actually point blank kucinich was brutally honest saying "yes it is about politics the democrats have failed America they did not vote us in for a democratic version of the war..."
She asks the candidates if the Democrats are putting “politics before conscience” in failing to fight harder to end the occupation of Iraq.
The Democrats' Iraqi Dilemma
Questions Unasked, Answers Never Volunteered
By Ira Chernus
Pity the poor Democratic candidates for president, caught between Iraq and a hard place. Every day, more and more voters decide that we must end the war and set a date to start withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Most who will vote in the Democratic primaries concluded long ago that we must leave Iraq, and they are unlikely to let anyone who disagrees with them have the party's nomination in 2008.
But what does it mean to "leave Iraq"? Here's where most of the Democratic candidates come smack up against that hard place. There is a longstanding bipartisan consensus in the foreign-policy establishment that the U.S. must control every strategically valuable region of the world -- and none more so than the oil heartlands of the planet. That's been a hard-and-fast rule of the elite for some six decades now. No matter how hard the task may be, they demand that presidents be rock-hard enough to get the job done.
So whatever "leave Iraq" might mean, no candidate of either party likely to enter the White House on January 20, 2009 can think it means letting Iraqis determine their own national policies or fate. The powers that be just wouldn't stand for that. They see themselves as the guardians of world "order." They feel a sacred obligation to maintain "stability" throughout the imperial domains, which now means most of planet Earth -- regardless of what voters may think. The Democratic front-runners know that "order" and "stability" are code words for American hegemony. They also know that voters, especially Democratic ones, see the price of hegemony in Iraq and just don't want to pay it anymore.
So the Democratic front-runners must promise voters that they will end the war -- with not too many ideologically laden ifs, ands, or buts -- while they assure the foreign-policy establishment that they will never abandon the drive for hegemony in the Middle East (or anywhere else). In other words, the candidates have to be able to talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.
The Democrats' Iraqi Dilemma
Watching this last night, I started wondering how GWB would've answered some of these questions.
Straight Shooter @ 12:
Point well taken, you couldn't be more correct, I just don't like Hillary and don't trust her promises, anybody that was on Walmarts' board is no one I want running the country. The reason IMHO that the voters are focused on the superficial is that is all the MSM has fed their dumb asses for decades now. The candidates know that upsetting the apple cart will get them marginalized like Edwards and shut off the corporate momey spigots.. It's kind of like the old snake eating it's own tail.
and those who have survived are not treated properly
Veterans' rights groups sue VA, seeking better care for injured troops
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/24/MNG8ER5LK...
Theophilus, A WELL DESERVED YHATZEE!!!
Login or Register to post comments.