What Would You Ask?

The NYTimes printed questions for the President (from Albright, Clarke, and Schlesinger) and Senator Kerry (from Kristol, Wedgwood, and Davis Hanson).

If you could ask one question of either candidate (on the evening's topic of national security [JRQ]*), what would it be?

Mine, to President Bush, would be:

You've repeatedly said that if your generals told you they needed more troops in Iraq you would send them. Yet when asked by a reporter recently about a comment General Abizaid made saying more troops would be needed to secure Iraq for the January elections, you, with all respect, Sir, essentially mocked the reporter, saying that you had seen the general just that morning and he hadn't said anything to you about it. This quite honestly creates the impression that perhaps your generals are afraid to ask you for more troops, that they know it would be frowned upon, or at least that they'll have to overcome some resistance within your administration to increasing the troops. But it also makes me wonder, have you asked General Abizaid directly if he needs additional troops in Iraq? And, if so, what was his response. If not, why not?

*JRQ (Jesurgislac Requested Qualification).

Comments

[Jesurgislac]

How many times have you been arrested, Mr President?

[Edward]

Yeah, yeah, Jes,...got one about national defense?

[Jesurgislac]

None that fall inside "If you could ask one question of either candidate, what would it be?"

If I could get Kerry to ask one question of George W. Bush, I might have a different answer. But if I have just one question, I'm going for the jugular. ;-)

In any case, if you only want national defense questions, you should specify that in your post...

[Alex R]

My question (to either candidate) would be:

"If you could ask just one question of the other candidate, what would it be?"

[Edward]

In any case, if you only want national defense questions, you should specify that in your post...

fair enough.

[Martin]

A question that needs to be asked (courtesy of RealVoices) is "What has the the President, the Commander in Chief, yet to attend the funeral of a single soldier killed in Iraq?"

[Skip Hokanson]

Question for Sen. Kerry: "You, sir, advocate much stronger international cooperation in strategic decisions, particularly with strong allies such as France and Germany. Both of these countries and many others are frequent critics of Israel, and condemn its policies regularly via UN resolutions. The Bush administration has decided to sell Israel 500 "bunker-buster" bombs, rather obviously with an eye to Iran's growing underground nuclear weapons program. Iran's policies suggest that the use of these bombs is not improbable, and as in the case of Iraq's Dimona facilities, would be strongly condemned by our allies and the UN. Would you, sir, rescind this decision in the interest of cooperation with our allies?"

[norbizness]

Proposed answer:

"Whoa, that's a long question (small laugh) In any event, I wasn't mocking.. (pause) that reporter (smirk). [pre-programmed non-response about supporting the troops]. Can my opponent say the same?"

And the national IQ goes down another half a point.

[blogbudsman]

Perfect:

Jim Lehrer - "Presi..I mean, Senator Kerry, how's the family?

Jim Lehrer - "Current President Bush, how many times have you been arrested?

Jes and I half way agree again!

[carsick]

"Mr. President--in October 2002 you said the Iraq resolution was a vote for peace. Now you're saying it was a vote for war. Which was it? Is John Kerry really the one who's been flip-flopping on this issue?"

Altercations got a bunch written by readers too.

[carsick]

Another:
"Question: Mr. President, you have accused John Kerry of not supporting the troops because he did not vote in favor of the funding bill that contained funds for basic soldier gear such as body armor. My question is who sent them into battle without that equipment in the first place?"

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

My question for both candidates regarding foreign policy is a two-parter.

Why?

How?

[Edward]

Why?

How?

Answers

Bush:
Why: Because we must ensure freedom remains on the march!
How: Staying the Course!

Kerry:
Why: Because the current course isn't working
How: Launch And Lead A New Era Of Alliances; Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats; Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal; Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil

[carsick]

Sebastian,
"Why?" have foreign policy?
"How" have foreign policy?

Kind of broadbased philosophical questions to be addressed in a 90 minute presidential debate format. Not to mention the fact that that type of question may not bring out your preferred candidate's strengths.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Kind of broadbased philosophical questions to be addressed in a 90 minute presidential debate format."

I don't mind. Those are the two questions I would ask. 45 minutes for each candidate on those question would be somewhat helpful.

What? I don't get to monopolize the whole time?

[kenB]

"Senator Kerry, you've suggested that you will be able internationalize the occupation and thereby bring substantial numbers of troops home in the next four years. What will you do if that international support does not materialize?"

[carsick]

Edwaaard!
Sebastian doesn't want to share!

[Edward]

Edwaaard!
Sebastian doesn't want to share!

If I have to stop this car and separate you two...so help me....

There's enough spin to go around for everyone.

[carsick]

By the way, after the president answers the Why and the How, what's he going to do with the next 40 minutes or so?
Do you think he would cede any to Kerry? Looking at all sides of How and Why might take awhile.

[praktike]

My question: it's likely that a truly democratic Iraq would be hostile to Israel and to the United States. Will you endorse an anti-American Iraqi government if it is duly elected by the people of Iraq?

[blogbudsman]

carsick - "Do you think he would cede any to Kerry? Looking at all sides of How and Why might take awhile."

There are some who think Bush could and should http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2822279>Funny You Should Ask

[sidereal]

Ooooh. . fun.

To President Bush: "Why are you such a terrible leader? Is it by design or intrinsic to your nature? Have you considered trying to improve?"
To Senator Kerry: "Why can't I get over how much of an ass you were to Howard Dean, the superior candidate?"

Or you can go with the Bush campaign 'open-forum' 'question' style.
To Senator Kerry: "Sir, I just want to thank you for standing up for American principle and sanity, and for speaking honestly rather than hiding behind meaningless cliches, and for helping to safeguard our nation. And I think it's outrageous that a cocaine-snorting, high rolling hypocrite like President Bush has the helm of our nation. And, well, that's my question"
Kerry: "Thank you, thank you for that".

Or the puzzler:
To both candidates: "A monk saw a turtle in the garden of Daizui's monastery and asked the teacher, "All beings cover their bones with flesh and skin. Why does this being cover its flesh and skin with bones?" Master Daizui took off one of his sandals and covered the turtle with it. What is your interpretation?"

[carsick]

blogbud
I was actually trying to do some equal opportunity ribbing in that post.

I don't think Iraq should be considered the extent of our foreign policy though. Sometimes dealing with states (Korea, Iran) is worth persuing over the more intricate detective type work of weeding out fundamentalist terror cells and their overseers but sometimes it's not (Iraq).

[kenB]

Sorry, sidereal, none of those have to do with foreign policy (except maybe the last one?). Try again.

[blogbudsman]

carsick - "I was actually trying to do some equal opportunity ribbing in that post."

I know, it was just ironic one of your favorite conservative thinkers shared similar thoughts. And I agree with your thoughts regarding the Iraq being the extent of foreign policy. It seems however that our tabloid existence draws us toward the shockingest art and loudest explosions. The next couple of days should be great fun.

[Edward]

our tabloid existence draws us toward the shockingest art

If only. !-(

[sidereal]

"Try again."
You don't really want that.

Besides, they're all about foreign policy if you preface each question with 'Regarding the War on Terror, '.

[Mo MacArbie]

(to either candidate)

With respect to the last question, your talking points have been noted. Now, Sir, will you please answer the question?

or alternately:

I have a two-part question. First,

WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?

And second,

ARE YOU INSANE?

[crionna]

Senator Kerry, its been said by many that for the US to be truly safe from terrorism the root causes of terrorism must be understood and removed. Please first tell us what you see as those root cause(s) and then explain what, if given the funds the current administration has expended attampting to foster democracy in Iraq, you would have done differently to remove those root cause(s)?

President Bush, its been said by many that for the US to be truly safe from terrorism the root cause(s) of terrorism must be understood and removed. You've expended a great deal of money and lives in an attempt to create a democracy in Iraq. Could you first please tell us what root cause(s) of terrorism you're trying to remove with this plan and if you were given the same funds again, what, if anything, would you do differently?

[carsick]

Sidereal
You got that backward, at least for one candidate all the ANSWERS will be prefaced with "Since 9/11..." whether the question is concerning domestic or foreign policy.

[Joe]

Sen Kerry, how do you intend to 'double the size of special forces'?

[JadeGold]

Joe: There's a very easy answer to that question.

First of all, it's not a novel idea. Rumsfeld's suggested much the same as part of his pet project to transform the Army.

Second, to allay the worries of keyboard warriors, who fervently believe there is a finite number of SF operators placed on this earth at a given time---the Army and USMC managed to more than triple the size of their SF during the 1980s.

[Joe]

Well, I guess that showed me. Who knew that the state of the US Special Operations Command today is comparable to that of the late 1970s/early 1980s.