Comments on: 21st Century Debate: Grilled By Web Video

Democratic Hopefuls Field Ordinary American's Questions, From The Serious To The Strange

[adventurepa]

Here's a question that will never be asked on the debate but should be asked.

We give billions of dollars away to many other countries to help fight a war.
How does that benefit America?
How many roads could be paved? how many books could it buy? How many people could get a tax break? How many kids could get free health care that cannot afford it today?

[toldyouso21]

5. Did we ignore the country where the attackers came from and only focus on preempting a sympathetic country?

6. Did we lie to our own citizens, Congress and the world to justify our attacking Iceland?

7. Did we continue to ignore or downplay Germany and Japan while making a case for staying and continuing to destroy Iceland?

8. Did we base businesses in Iceland to usurp local authority while we tried to gain monopolies in rebuilding/accessing energy sources.

9. Did we need to enact an immunity to war crimes law like Germany for what we did in Iceland?

Because if the answer is not yes to any of these--then the 'idiots' have more than enough grounds for impeachment.

We will never forgive the Democrats for standing by when an impeachment was frivolous and caving in when it was necessary and they balked.

[toldyouso21]

REMINDER TO GUNOWNERDAN: Immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor the first nation we invaded was not Japan and not Germany but Iceland. Posted by doctorwho4 at 12:42 PM : Jul 23, 2007

An interesting point that deserves more exploration. considering the circumstances and present situations, these questions should be raised:

1. After invading Iceland, did we rout the current leaders and have them and their families killed and broadcast their deaths all over the world?

2. Did we decide to forget about Germany, Italy and Japan and focus solely on securing Icelands Geothermal power, netting contracts and pouring billions into the country to repair what we were destroying?

3. Did we declare Iceland our most important "front" of the war, base the majority of our troops there and occupy them for at least 4 years?

4. Did we decide that Iceland was so decisive that we could destroy them and their people and that by doing so, THIS would allow us to make them our proxy war? IN other words, we defeat and fight Icelanders there so we don't have to fight the Japanese and Germans here? cont on next post

[sharncedar]

At what point can we stop the analogies between George Cheney's "war on terror" with WWI? Well, since basic analogies are a standard part of some IQ tests, what we can say is that for people with IQ over 100, WWII is NOT LIKE the "war on terror"

similar:

Both have the word "war" in their title


dissimilar:

WWII involved 20 or more countries with declared wars against other countries
WWII was larger by a scale of 100 times in terms of people fighting
In WWII, America was the country enforcing the Geneva conventions, not the country trying to throw out the Geneva conventions
In WWII, there were ships involved, and naval battles
In WWII, there were air battles and dogfights
In WWII, the enemy had some tanks, called Panzers if you recall, not mud huts
In WWII, the enemies had factories in which they manufactured stuff
In WWII, the enemy had some million armed, uniformed soldiers, in the field, fighting with our soldiers using guns issued to them by a government

The next person who compares WWII to George Bush's phony "war on terror" gets a lobotomy, well I guess a second lobotomy

[oleander8]

(( To: doctorwho4 ))
Excellent commentary until I got to this line:
"This would be grounds for impeachment in the minds of many empty minded idiots."

You lost all credibility with your need to insult.

[SIDNEYWILLIAMSMD]

REMINDER TO GUNOWNERDAN: Immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor the first nation we invaded was not Japan and not Germany but Iceland. The tangle of enemies is sometimes complex but FDR and his generals made the right decision. Iceland was sympathetic with Germany, and we did not want German air bases there, thus the "preemptive attack on a non-hostile country"
This would be grounds for impeachment in the minds of many empty minded idiots.

[SIDNEYWILLIAMSMD]

FLASH-NEWS ANCHORS NAMED FOR DEMOCRATIC DEBATE:

Three news services will provide the moderators and anchors including Al Zazeera moderater Mohammed Atta, no relation, MSLSD-Dateline for Surrender, and the AP (Al Qaeda Pipeline). These will not be soft ball questions, folks. Expect a lively set of questions demanding details and timelines for surrender.

[forthepeopl1]

There never was a congressional declaration of war to cover the invasion of Iraq. Instead, President Bush acted under his claimed power as commander in chief, which the Supreme Court has held does allow him to respond to a "state of war" against the United States. That proviso was clearly a reference to surprise attacks or sudden emergencies.

The problem is that the "state of war" in question here was an al Qaeda attack on the U.S. that had nothing whatsoever to do with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Perhaps to spare Congress the embarrassment of formally declaring war against a nation that had not attacked America, Bush settled for a loosely worded resolution supporting his use of military power if Iraq failed to comply with U.N. mandates. This was justified by the White House as a means of strengthening the United Nations in holding Iraq accountable for its WMD arsenal, but as most of the world looked on in dismay, Bush invaded Iraq after U.N. inspectors on the ground discovered that Iraq had no WMD.

Bush betrayed Congress, which in turn betrayed the American people %u2014 just as Madison feared when he wrote: "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it compromises and develops the germ of every other."

[gunownerdan]

The Whitehouse is for sale to the highest bidder.

[adventurepa]

The CNN debates are the best thing happening so far in this election coverage.

CBS, you could do the same thing with questions listed on this comments section.

Katie Couric was trying new things yet had the comments section the whole time and has failed to read anyones comments on TV!!!!!!!!!!

Your new format should include reading comments from these boards about the news stories listed and providing feedback.
Just like Jack Caffordy(?) on CNN does.

Agree with forthepeopl1
Very nice comment my friend.

[forthepeopl1]

someone needs to ask them this...............

this is the only way!!!!!!!!! to stop this adminastration. period..the only way bush has no way of vetoing. so why haven't they done this?

both party are dragging this on to far. its time to end this for god sake

so call on congress to do this NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Article 1 of the US Constitution gives the Congress, not the President, the right to declare war. And the War Powers Act specifies that the President may not continue a war without Congressional authorization. Saddam is dead. There never were any WMDs or ties to Al Qaeda. The basis for the 2002 war authorization is gone.
If Congress passes a resolution de-authorizing the war, the President has no legal authority to continue. De-authorization cannot be vetoed, and it would legally require Bush to begin bringing the troops home.
The time for waiting is over. People are dying every day. We cannot wait until this fall to start bringing our troops home. If Congress doesn't act before they leave for the summer, the only thing that will change between now and the end of the year is the body count.
Congress has a public mandate and the Constitutional authority to end this war.

LETS GO AMERICA WE OWE THIS TO OUR TROOPS DIEING FOR NOTHING BUT THE PRESIDENTS AND MR VP'S PLEASURE, AND PROFITS.....