.
April 25th, 2008
03:40 PM ET

Should the candidates be talking more about Iraq?

ALT TEXT

A US soldier of 3rd Battalion, 320th Field Artillery Regiment, looks toward Iraqi soldiers pushing forward during a joint patrol in a market area in Mahmudiyah. Click the Play Button to see what Jack and out viewers had to say. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

A new report out today from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

The Iraqi government is keeping thousands of dead, injured and missing soldiers and policemen on the payroll. Let me just run that past you again. The Iraqi government is using your money to pay thousands of dead, injured and missing soldiers and policemen as a way of compensating or caring for their families. This completely outrageous news comes from a report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. It also says Iraqis have a shortage of officers and still rely on coalition forces for substantial logistical support.

The Iraqi army was supposed to be able to stand on its own two years ago. We're now being told they might get around to it by September of 2009.

This program to train Iraqi soldiers - and continue to pay the dead and missing ones - is costing American taxpayers $20 billion dollars. The report comes as Congress prepares to take up President Bush's request for another 108 billion dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff today is accusing Iran of increasing arms and training support to insurgents in Iraq.

These news items were not known when a new USA-Today Gallup Poll was taken that shows sixty three percent of Americans say that the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq. That's the highest "mistake" percentage Gallup has ever measured for an active war involving the United States.

Only Sixty-one percent of Americans in May 1971 said the Vietnam War was a mistake.

Here’s my question to you: Are the presidential candidates going to have to spend more time talking about Iraq?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Praetorian from Ft. Myers writes:
The last thing that Clinton and Obama want to talk about is Iraq. As Commander-in-Chief, their stance will have to be much different than on the campaign trail and they don't want to make any promises to the liberal audience that as president he or she will not be able to keep. They're very happy letting Mr. Bush take all the heat.

Courtney from South Windsor, Connecticut writes:
Of course! Many of the current issues facing our nation can be in some way associated with the debacle in Iraq. But the candidates alone are not to blame, the press have started to gloss over the horrific events taking place there. Agenda setting does take place in the media and I'm baffled at how moronic debate questions have usurped the importance of American lives overseas.

Ralph from New York writes:
Only in terms of bringing our troops home, spending no more money there, and showing the Iraqi government we will not be handling their responsibilities.

Patricia writes:
If we were getting facts from all angles, like this story, we would remain interested in the details of the Iraq war and would not reach brain freeze when the topic comes up. Sadly, it is human nature to lose interest in a problem the more it is in the press.

Rosalynd from Florida writes:
1.Presumptive Nominee Obama would be happy to discuss Iraq.
2.Loser Clinton wants to whine about more debates and loses on the issue of Iraq with her vote for war
3.McCain would surely want to skip this discussion since he and Bush are tied at the hip on the issue.


Filed under: 2008 Election • War in Iraq
soundoff (130 Responses)
  1. Chuck in Alabama

    No. I think we pretty much understand their plans for Iraq. I'd like to hear McCain talk honestly about the economy. I'd like to hear Sen. Clinton talk to me about election reform. I'd like to hear Sen. Obama tell us just how he'd like us to fix the obvious racial issues we have in this country.

    April 25, 2008 at 1:43 pm |
  2. Sam

    Jack, I am glad you asked this. They should be talking more about Iraq. But it seems the only topic the media seems to focus on are the divisive ones like race and Bill Clinton who keeps stirring up the pot.

    The men dying in Iraq are both Black and White. They are all American. So when can we let the only candidate who has been about uniting this country, Obama, get back to talking about this war in Iraq. Remember he was the only candidate with the sound judgement to be against in the first place.

    April 25, 2008 at 1:45 pm |
  3. Rosalynd Florida

    1. Presumptive Nominee Obama would be happy to discuss Iraq.

    2.Looser Clinton wants to whine about more debates and looses on the issue of Iraq with her vote for war

    3.McCain would surely want to skip this discussion since he and Bush are tied at the hip on the issue.

    April 25, 2008 at 1:50 pm |
  4. Ryan, Champaign IL

    I think the candidates have a hard time talking about Iraq, because their more nuanced positions are ignored, and because most Americans are unsure of who we are fighting and what the mission actually is (including John McCain). The last debate would have been the ideal venue to get their positions out, but we all know how that went.

    April 25, 2008 at 1:52 pm |
  5. Jenny

    I would love to here an exit strategy from anyone. All I hear is that we need to get out and would start leaving as soo as a Democrat is President but I do not hear how we are goin to do that.

    Jenny Rome GA

    April 25, 2008 at 1:53 pm |
  6. Barbara in NC

    It doesn't matter – the American people are fooled by the Clintons and Bushes. The majority believe the lies from those two groups. So it doesn't matter. Lemmings lemmings lemmings

    April 25, 2008 at 1:58 pm |
  7. Ron Mechanicsville, VA

    Iraq? Iraq hasn't really been getting big ratings lately, Jack. Hardly hear about it in the news. No the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the economy. There are people who can see events happening and deduce what future effects will be in the big picture. Thousands of years ago they were called prophets.
    Today we can't seem to see tomorrow. The greed that has recently put our nation into debt we may never get out of has created an Economic Tsunami, as one blogger called it, that may be responsible for the next Great Depression!
    People can't afford to drive to work for low wages!!!! Elderly are choosing between their medicines and food!
    No Jack, I don't think they should be talking about Iraq, that damage has already been done. IT"S THE ECONOMY STUPID!

    April 25, 2008 at 2:00 pm |
  8. Brian from Fort Mill, S.C.

    Yes. The economy is the number one issue, but the war in Iraq is hurting the economy.

    If we redeploy to Afghanistan, we could give everybody tax breaks, universal health care, fully fund No Child Left with a Big Behind, solve world hunger, find a cure for AIDS, raise the minimum wage to $20 per hour, and a Cadillac in every garage, and still pay down the deficit!

    April 25, 2008 at 2:01 pm |
  9. Len in Clarkston, WA

    Yes.

    Here's another question.
    "When is the media going to spend more time talking about Iraq?"

    Please don't make this another Forgotten War like the one in Afganistan. Our men and women are sacrificing in ways we don't want to imagine and we all seem to be too busy gossiping about things that just don't matter in the long run.

    Len in Clarkston, WA

    April 25, 2008 at 2:01 pm |
  10. Dave from Veazie, ME

    The candidates definitely need to be talking more about Iraq, and more about the economy, and more about high gas prices, and more about health care, etc, etc, etc. But thanks to the incredibly negative campaign that Hillary Clinton has been running that focuses on petty things instead of real issues I don't think we are going to any time soon.

    April 25, 2008 at 2:04 pm |
  11. dorothy delong

    Jack we need answers to all issues like the war , gas prices , home morgages we need just some down to earth answers that will have solutions to all the problems we have. Since Bush has made the mess our country is in. Sometime it is a decision to pay bills or buy medicine . These are not the golden years I always heard about.
    Go Hillary.................. Dorothy ,Lucasville Ohio

    April 25, 2008 at 2:06 pm |
  12. Esther Cuyahoga Falls Ohio

    the only talk i want to hear about Iraq is our boys are coming home

    April 25, 2008 at 2:07 pm |
  13. Mike from Syracuse NY

    Sure Jack. I'd like to hear Obama explain how he will listen to the commanders on the ground, and do a quick withdrawal at the same time. They are mutually exclusive alternatives. The reason we got into this mess is that Bush and Rumsfeld didn't listen to the then JCS, Gen. Shelton. Shelton was a proponent of using overwhelming force. Instead we went in without enough troops to secure the country after we took it. The Constitution says that the President is Commander-in-Chief. But it's a bad CINC that ignores the advice of his or her subordinates. Obama doesn't exactly have a resume thick with military experinece. I guess in this case, hope will be his military strategy.

    April 25, 2008 at 2:08 pm |
  14. Kathy, Texas

    Sam,
    Obama wasn't even a senator when the original vote went to congress. Of course he can say he was against it from the start. No one asked him in the first place. AND 77 senators voted FOR the "use of military action" in Iraq. 23 voted against it. Obama's name is NO WHERE on the list. So more than likely the senator that your state voted into office, a 77% chance anyway, voted for the "action" in Iraq.

    April 25, 2008 at 2:08 pm |
  15. Taj

    Not much about Iraq except to bring the troops back home. Now it is the economy, medical & social programs to uplift the ordinary people of the US & the world.
    CA

    April 25, 2008 at 2:09 pm |
  16. Mike S., New Orleans, Louisiana

    No, I think political candidates should always say whatever the people want to hear, and then do the exact opposite once they get into office, like Bush did. Americans seem to have sunk to the lowest levels of lemminghood, and will vote for whoever promises them the biggest check.

    April 25, 2008 at 2:09 pm |
  17. Brian, In Philly

    Considering that the average US voter has the attention span of a gnat, would it clarify anything? It is more effective to place blame for the war on other candidates and toss around buzz words like "change," and phrases like "yes we can."

    April 25, 2008 at 2:10 pm |
  18. Kevin - Albany, NY

    Yes, yes, yes, all three of them should be talking about it. McCain outright admitted that he will lose if he can't convince us we're winning in Iraq. Well I, for one, am not convinced. Just what do we stand to gain from being there? And don't tell us that Iraq is the front-line in the war on terror–that would be Afghanistan. So go ahead, Senator McCain, and make your argument. We're waiting...

    April 25, 2008 at 2:11 pm |
  19. steph

    No, our president and everyone who voted yes to the war who is currently in office should be trying to get this matter straighten out. Not Obama. Now Hillary on the other hand need to explain why she think it not a good idea when at first she did. Conflicting isn't it.

    April 25, 2008 at 2:11 pm |
  20. Billy G in Las Vegas

    they are going to have to spend WAY more time on the Iraq War because it is not only costing us American lives but has also bankrupted the treasury, done great damage to our military and has destroyed the image of the United States with many of our foreign allies.

    John McCain especially is going to have to explain just HOW you keep tax cuts for ultrarich individuals, Oil companies with record profits and other corporations, many of which have used outsourcing and/or illegal alien labor to increase their profits, without completely destroying the value of the US Dollar or gutting every social program from Social Security to Medicare. from what I have heard from McCain so far, he sounds af financially irresponsable as George W Bush.

    April 25, 2008 at 2:11 pm |
  21. Ann

    No, they should talk about foreign policy, our military and when the USA should commit troops to be in harm's way. We know they want to get us out of Iraq, but to press them now when conditions can and will change by the time they are in office and get briefed by their military advisors would be damaging to the process and the endgame.

    April 25, 2008 at 2:11 pm |
  22. Jed from Chico, CA

    Yes, they should but only once the general election really gets going. It's going to be THE issue that provides the greatest contrast between the Democrats and Republicans.

    John '100 years' McCain has no desire to alter course on anything in Iraq whereas the Democrats argue amongst themselves about who will get the troops out faster. McCain himself said that Iraq may be the issue that loses him the election.

    As a side note: Hillary is starting to sound like John "I was for it before I was against it" Kerry on Iraq. Not only does she need to shut up about Iraq, she needs to just plain shut up.

    April 25, 2008 at 2:12 pm |
  23. marie

    Yes, They should have been talking about many relevant issues that have not been discussed in detail. The Democratic party is in turmoil with a race that has been allowed to be defined by personal jabs rather than issues and character. Florida and Michigan should have been led to a resolution before their primaries. The superdelegate's votes should have been disclosed when their states had voted in the primaries.

    McCain doesn't seem to be talking about Iraq either. Looks like their taking the approach that the less you say, the less ammunition their political opponents will have for you.

    April 25, 2008 at 2:14 pm |
  24. Jayne in NH

    Iraq? Are we still in Iraq? Why . . . I figured the war must be over since all the news networks report is Reverend Wright. Yes, it's Pastor Wright 24/7, all stations, all the time. And in the few minutes when it subsides, we veer back to "bitter-gate." No one seems to care that Hillary wants to obliterate Iran. No one cares McCain wants to end employer tax deductions that would kill healthcare for millions. Nope. All we need to know about is Jeremiah Wright. 24/7, all stations, all the time.

    April 25, 2008 at 2:19 pm |
  25. stan

    the war in iraq is central to our country and economy, we need to wrap it up, we are all suffering the after effect of launching a fake war, it should have never been authorized or waged, obama for president!

    April 25, 2008 at 2:19 pm |
  26. Soothsayer in Indiana

    The candidates should be talking about all of the issues.That might happen if you people in the MSM would give the non-issues a rest.

    April 25, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  27. DAD in Hollis, NH

    The differences between the Republicans and the Democrats appear to be well understood. There is little difference between the Democratic candidate’s positions. We should be hearing a lot more about the economy (gas and food prices and the mortgage meltdown), illegal immigration, and term limits for congress to really force change. I hear a lot of “When I’m president I’m going to…” but very little substance. Regarding the term limits, if you’re not going to do anything constructive than move over and let someone else at it.

    April 25, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
  28. Jason, Brooklyn

    The cost the Iraq War has wrought in terms of blood, treasure, and to our standing in the world is enormous. The next president will be confronted head on with the challenge of cleaning up this mess. However, the media has swept the war under the rug in order to film Senator Obama bowling and Senator Clinton doing shots of whiskey. Rather than focusing on how the candidates could fit in with working class people, let's focus on ending the war that has shed the blood of thousands of Americans, many of them, "working class".

    April 25, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
  29. AndyZ; Fairfax, VA

    Jack, I've heard it over and over again, Americans vote with their wallets. If there are still a few doubtors that we are on the verge of a recession/depression or total economic disaster let them carry on the debate on Iraq. I want to know why the administration has not done a thing on the amazingly high prices for gas? What is the administration doing about food prices? How about health care? When the hell is Bush going to get off of his regal butt and help the people of the 9th Ward in New Orleans? If these conditions lasts through the summer we will have our own people, Americans, having to choose between warmth in the winter or being able to eat.

    April 25, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
  30. Chicago Bob from Illinois

    The economy took over from the war as issue number 1. Obama still has the most credibility for stopping the war and its drain on our national budget and the strain on our armed forces, including the thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of wounded. McCain is defending the war and Hillary will do whatever the polls say she should.

    April 25, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  31. Catherine Lao

    Jack,

    Most certainly the candidates will need to spend more time defining how they will be able to deal with the debacle in Iraq. The war on terror is now a war on what I ask? All three candidates are weak in this area because it will be up to Congress to end the war and any concept plans that any Democratic candidate to-date has come up with may look nothing like it appears presently. McCain on the other hand is far too frightening to even pursue making an argument, much less trying to understand any of the logic unless of course, the underlying factor is money and from what appears, the people of the United States is losing more than certain greed-mongers/special interest groups are. Where are the ethics? Just goes to show, once again, just how screwed up Washington is and has been since the Nixon administration.

    April 25, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  32. MICHAEL

    How can we expect Al-Maliki to hold anybody accountable for all the corruption in his government. We have the most corrupt administration in U.S. history and nobody's been held accountable for anything yet.

    April 25, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  33. Marina in Huntersville

    Hmmm. I'm a little confused. I thought that the surge was such a success. What's going on? Corruption? Mismanagement? An Iraqi government that is treating us like the chumps we are? An increase in violence since Al Sadr's militia broke his cease fire? Wow. And I thought the decrease in violence was a result of the surge. Amazing.

    Well, we will never hear the truth from John "the straight talker" McCain, because his position is based on smoke and mirrors.

    Will we hear more about Iraq once there's a Democratic candidate solified? I can only hope so.

    April 25, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  34. wendy Illinois

    Yes.....

    April 25, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  35. Cheryl

    Jack,

    I want these candidates to talk about how they plan on bring down the cost of gas in this country. I am tired of paying $100.00 a week for gas.

    Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly I need to let you in on secret. Most people in this country goes to work every day and pay taxes, and we do not deserve this gas burden that has been placed on working families in this country.

    From Texas

    April 25, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  36. Doug from Bloomington IN

    Well of course. They need to discuss the two solutions: 1.) Leave now, let 'em have their civil war. We can ride bicycles until things flesh out. Or 2.) Give Iraq the status of 51st state in the United States of America, made Bhagdad the capitol, set up a government and thereby, you have peace....for about five minutes. Then we'd have to move into Iran. That's 52. Syria would make 53. By that time, the other countries in the area would say, "Okay! Okay! Relax! Let's just get along." Then on to Afganistan, Pakistan...keep on going ..basically surround China. After a while, America will have the world America wants. McDonalds for everybody!

    April 25, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  37. Julie, NY

    Absolutely. But they're probably afraid the media will accuse them of scaring voters into voting for them.

    April 25, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  38. Paula in Albuquerque

    Why should they? It's no skin off their collective "nose"! They've no children in harm's way, battling to fix the mess that their government created!

    April 25, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  39. Dick B

    Nah I don't think so. Everyone knows the candiates' stance on Iraq. "More pain with McCain", "Vote Hill get more Bill", and "Join the Dark side with Obama". So we either get more war, cut and run, or an attempt to sway the people with the force.

    April 25, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  40. Nancy Watson

    Both the presidential candidates and the media should spend more time talking about Iraq, specifically, the costs of staying there

    Understanding the opportunity costs as they pertain to the financial well-being of the US would help Americans decide if they want to stay in Iraq until the 'war is won'.

    There should be more discussion about how this war has affected the troops and their families and how the candidates propose to take care of them going forward.

    For starters, I would like to know why the two Democratic candidates and 290 other members of Congress support the new GI Bill and Senator McCain has not?

    Nancy Watson
    Toronto, Canada

    April 25, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  41. Jeff

    They should be talking about all the issues and what and how they plan to correct them; Irag is a drain on our economy and we should bring out boys home. That by itself will go a long way in helping the economy.............

    April 25, 2008 at 3:44 pm |
  42. james in columbus oh

    I don't whether the candidates talk about the war, the economy, the environment, health care, job growth, etc. As long as news anchors stop talking about flag pins, and other meaningless crap...stick to the issues.

    April 25, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  43. Lynn, Vancouver

    Should the media be asking more about the war and reporting more on the war instead of rehashing the Wright statements and the number of shoes Obama has. Perhaps world reaction to Clinton's "obliterate Iran" comments or the fear of a McCain White House.

    April 25, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  44. Tom in Texas

    Absolutely not! It is a real and important issue. Why start talking about real issues now. It is better to talk about Reverend Wright-gate, bitter-gate and God knows what else the news media will come up with to help Hillary win.

    April 25, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
  45. Mike, Idaho

    Jack, . . . Why would Hillary want to talk about Iraq when she voted to go
    over there? She's hoping that we forgot. She's probably on your call-waiting going "SHHHHHHHH!

    April 25, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  46. Sharon

    The war should be discussed more, since that is the reason the economy is what it is today. We cannot afford to keep this war going, it has cost us so much in lives lost and money spent for what? We are not safer today, we have people losing jobs, people struggling to pay their bills and we continue the war as if everything is fine. I think there is a conspiracy to bring America down within and we are doing a fine job of that. Both candidates should be discussing the issues, but Bill and Hill have to try hard to bring Obama down in order for her to get to the White House which polls show that half the country doesn't trust her. MCCAIN will be president and the war will continue

    April 25, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  47. Jen in Texas

    Obama just says he didn't sign up for the war.

    Clinton has a solid plan to get us out

    mcCain wants to stay as in Iraq as long as he can

    Whats to talk about.

    April 25, 2008 at 3:54 pm |
  48. Greg ...Cabot AR

    The Bush administration has repeatedly refered to our involvement in the in the Iraq war with tired old slogans like "fight the terrorists over there or here", "stabalize the region" and even said "you break it – you buy it" as an excuse not to leave until the job is "finished".

    The candidates avoid the war issue because the economy is on the voters mind now and that's what they need to talk about to get elected..........all 3 candidates are aware that "the bull is still in the china shop" and one of them will have to clean up the mess as us taxpayers foot the bill.

    The Iraqis continue to tabulate the bill knowing that someday, Uncle Sam will have "pony up" to make things good for them while they get rich from their oil profits.....they obviously don't want to spend their oil money for reconstruction.........

    April 25, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  49. Peter Parker - Miami, FL

    What are they gonna say?
    Obama will continue to say that he was the only one that thought Iraq was a mistake (is that going to help us?). McCain will say again that he is the only one tough enough to solve the situation (but will not offer a solution). And Clinton will continue to talk nonsense about it.

    Where in the speech of these empty polititians is the american people´s interest?

    April 25, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  50. Vinnie Vino

    Jack,
    They can ask President Bush and his oil friends to pay for his mistake everyday and call him at 3 AM everynight to remind him...

    C.I., New York

    April 25, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  51. Ray in West Chester, PA

    Jack, it's the ecoomy, stupid!! (remember)

    April 25, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  52. Richard Sternagel

    Yes their going to have to spend more time talking about Iraq and its never ending war! The war is tied to our economy and we are becoming bankrupt by its continuance!

    April 25, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
  53. Sue Filutze

    What a great idea Jack, talk about Iraq and the Economy, oh yea, were talking about the meda here, so they don't have time to talk about anything but Rev. Wright, or how Hillary is making such a "big" comback, (see who jumped ship for Obama today), or how McCain is touring New orleans. Wouldn't it be refreshing if they could talk about the ISSUES! Nay, aint never gonna happen!

    April 25, 2008 at 4:01 pm |
  54. chryssa

    Voters say the economy is their #1 concern, since that's what the media has been telling them. But If more Americans understood that the state of our economy is closely tied to what's happening in Iraq, they'd demand to hear where the candidates stand.

    Instead, and partial thanks to ABC, many voters are more worried about rumors and associations than actual policy and problem solving. They've moved into panic mode – "We can't worry about other countries! We have to worry about ourselves!"

    Boise, Idaho

    April 25, 2008 at 4:01 pm |
  55. Harry

    Obama and Clinton are nearly identical in talking about a pullout. They want to focus on their differences, not their similarities.

    A McCain presidency, by his own admission, hinges on Iraq, which for him, means no news is good news.

    Why should they talk about it, until the fall? I suspect we will still be there, don't you.

    Harry
    Ky.

    April 25, 2008 at 4:01 pm |
  56. Don Blue Springs, Missouri

    It would be better for them if they don't talk about it too much, then when they don't do what they say they are going to do they wont look so ignorant.

    April 25, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  57. Gordon, NJ

    Yes, but they need to show more sophistication than we've heard so far...especially from John McCain. His staged machismo "we must win!" is just more of Bush's wishful thinking and self-defeating belligerence. Obama has a much more intuitive understanding of global relationships. Like the best officers I had in the Army, he’s a deliberate and thoughtful leader, not a short-tempered bully.

    April 25, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  58. Tracie from Memphis, TN

    We hear Obama talk about it clearly & often. HIllary essentially repeats what he says. While McCain, who says he hates war, doesn't seem to mention the over 4000 killed in this Fool's War.

    April 25, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  59. Alan, Buxton, Maine

    Iraq has been the most costly blunder in American history. Between the immediate dollar cost, the current and future cost for treatment of the brutally mutilated soldiers and the loss of status in the world, we may never fully recover. The candidates must make the war a top priority.

    April 25, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
  60. ntam ephraim

    Jack, what have you got to say about General George Sada claim that the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were transported to Syria just before the invasion by the U.S? I ask this because of the concerns over Syria N-Korea relationship in recent days.
    Jack, I also think that the next president of the U.S should be voted by the whole world because what ever decision he make affects the whole world.

    April 25, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
  61. Mary Texas

    The culpert here is the media and the Clintons, Give Oboma a chance and he will discuss the issues.Wonder why this is. do you have any ideas Jack?I'm 83 and have spent the last 7 years depressed by the Bush bunch and hope to live to see some relief with the next election.

    April 25, 2008 at 4:39 pm |
  62. Ana (MI)

    There would be more talk about the issues if Hillary and the media would allow it.

    April 25, 2008 at 4:40 pm |
  63. Sara

    Of course the candidates should be talking about Iraq, but as we all know, the media (who controls what messages from the candidates we are allowed to hear) is more interested in sliming Obama to extend the Dem primary and keep the revenues up. Meanwhile, McOld is running on a Bush third term, insuring 4 more years of colossal failure, and the talking heads praise him as a "maverick".

    April 25, 2008 at 4:40 pm |
  64. Gail - Amherst, NY

    The presidential candidates can spend all the time talking about Iraq but it still isn't going to change its terrible status. Bush opened the can of worms and whoever takes his office will be faced with his mistakes. Bush and Cheney have disgraced this country and unfortunately the United States of America will pay for years to come.

    April 25, 2008 at 4:47 pm |
  65. Mil

    Obama would love to talk about Iraq and the economy but all the republicans want to talk about is Jeremiah Wright.

    April 25, 2008 at 4:48 pm |
  66. Gene, Florida

    Yes! They should point out how the cost of the war is having a detrimental affect on issue #1 (the American economy). Ending this war can save billions, not only in welfare payments to Iraq but no bid contracts to boot. How can John McShame never ask for an earmark for his state of Arizona but approves earmarks for Iraq for the next hundred years? If American can have a welfare to work policy so can Iraq.

    April 25, 2008 at 4:48 pm |
  67. Jay Wayne, Escazu, Costa Rica

    Iraq ???

    April 25, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
  68. Tariq Khan

    The US by out sourcing virtually everything to China – be honest folks virtually everything you buy today has "made in China" written on it – created a monster that is gobbling up resources – ALL resources. That includes oil – demand increases supply stays about the same & the price goes up simple as... On top of that they hold about 1 trillion of your debt.

    So just to screw the situation up even more you go & pour billions into a black hole in Iraq that the current administration scared you all into getting into because it takes the fight to al qeada – which incidentally is in afghanistan. So the current guy has no clue about geography & neither does McCain – he does know the difference between Iraq & Iran... And the dems are worried about taking on this guy in November??/!! Probably because they know the voters were dumb enough to elect bush twice I guess??

    April 25, 2008 at 4:52 pm |
  69. Red Dog from ND but now in O city Florida

    Only in the way and when they are going to bring our brothers and sisters home from bush's folly. Let bush fund his mess and take the three trillion dollars and spend it on economic initiatives. Oh yeah that’s right that idiot doesn’t believe we are in a recession. Oh wait, he is right we have slid past recession right into a depression, but he is rich so he doesn’t care.

    April 25, 2008 at 4:53 pm |
  70. M.L. Squier

    Yes. They'll have to talk about Iraq, but they'll also have to do more than just talk about Iraq. That's the Bush War Syndrome: Talk about it, talk about it, talk about it. Surge, Surge, Surge...until Iran has made itself (or been fashioned into) a sufficiently evil enemy so that Cheney and Bush can begin their new war of nuking this arm of Bush's evil axis.

    In the meantime, the people of this nation need to file a class action suit against George W. Bush and Richard Bruce DICK Cheney, and make them pay for their mis-begotten, unnecessary war, and after they are broke and walking in rags, impeach and imprison their lying hides.

    April 25, 2008 at 4:53 pm |
  71. Terry in Hanover, VA

    Yes - Iraq and the economy since they are intertwined. It's time for both the candidates and the media to stop dwelling on minutiae, gossip, and character assassination.

    April 25, 2008 at 4:54 pm |
  72. Fred... Spring Hill, Fl

    I guess this country loves to be at war. I can't beleive that we are sitting back letting the "government" of Iraq dictate to us what they want us to do. They go on extended vacations, visit and socialize with the Iranian clowns, pay dead people to police their towns, and we keep rightr on giving them more and more money, exspose our finest young people to extreme danger and think nothing of it. Then CNN hires Tony Snow... I'm switching to MSNBC.

    April 25, 2008 at 4:56 pm |
  73. Jenny from Nanuet, New York

    Maybe if the MEDIA spent more time covering Iraq, the CANDIDATES would talk more about Iraq, too. But since the media seems to find things like ex-pastors more important, Iraq isn't focused on as much as it should be.

    April 25, 2008 at 4:58 pm |
  74. LH

    The democratics have been all along and that's why I think it's so absolutely ridiculous when I hear those polls about democratics that say if their candidate doesn't get the nomination, they'll either vote for McCain or stay home. Do they even realize what they are saying? That equates to another "100 years" in Iraq, an even broker US due to more debt trying to fund this war. Get us out- NOW!

    April 25, 2008 at 4:59 pm |
  75. Jim Chieco

    Jack, Forget Iraq..They do not want to touch the subject. My question would be to the media and why they are not going after our representatives for the no bid contracts to Haliburton et al.

    It seems the first amendment no longer assures us of a free and unbiased press. The corporations do not allow Reporters the freedoms they have. And very few Reporters or commentators Wolf Blitzer among them have the guts or balls to do their job correctly.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:00 pm |
  76. Patty Kennedy

    Yes, the candidates should be talking more about the war...why haven't you in the media been pushing them harder on it? It's almost criminal the lack of any on-air reporting on what is happening in the Mid-East. Anyone remember Michael Ware?

    Can we really blame the candidates for not talking about it? Who is asking them about the Iraqi Army deserting their posts and leaving US forces high and dry? Oh, that's right – flag pins and preachers are more relevant.

    Patty K

    April 25, 2008 at 5:00 pm |
  77. Bill from Oklahoma

    I am sure they talk about the war, but since the media doesn't have the body counts and pictures of US soldiers writhing in pain they are not carrying the comments.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:02 pm |
  78. Gordon Las Vegas NV

    no, Iraq is the Republican graveyard, it would be disrespectful to enter it.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:03 pm |
  79. Jerry from Louisville,KY

    No they need to focus more on our economy. The economy is the most important issue right now and needs to be addressed. By the time one of these candidates takes office, gas prices will probably be close to $5 a gallon, and there will be more food limitations. I want to know what they are going to do to " stop the bleeding."

    April 25, 2008 at 5:04 pm |
  80. Lerome Brock

    I think they need to be talking more about the numbskulls (Bush's clique) that got us into this war and the numbskull (John insane McCain) that wants to keep us in it.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:05 pm |
  81. Bill Oh Really

    Jack, Hillary is very knowledgement about Iraq and has already explained it to Obama and the American people. She can correct this Bush mess.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
  82. James Robinson

    Yes, it is time for the candidates to let us know what exactly they are going to do about Iraq. It is time to get out. If the Iraqi people can't stand up now, then let the extremists take over. And if they level attacks at us, then more Shock and Awe is warranted.
    Jim Robinson
    Montgomery Alabama

    April 25, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
  83. Joe

    Why? Every rational person knows Iraq is a disaster. Who ever is elected, no matter what they say know, will try to get us out as quickly as they can and no one will be able to do that in less than four years. They can tell us what we already know about what a mess it is, tells us more lies about how it is winnable or how they will get us out immediately, or shut up about Iraq and tell us lies were not yet tired of hearing like how they will fix the mortage mess or the tax mess or the gas mess or the healthcare mess.

    Joe
    Nebraska

    April 25, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
  84. Mark Oklahoma City, OK

    Why bother talking about it, Jack. ALL the candidates will maintain the status quo in Iraq as soon as they take office no matter what they say now. They will find the right excuse to keep us there for say.......100 years or so, for democracy's sake of course, not the OIL.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
  85. Darr/Cleveland/Ohio

    I would certainly hope the candidates begin to talk about Iraq and exactly what our country's intentions will be once they take office. By talk I am referring to hearing each candidate's reason to enact whatever plan they have conceived that is in our country's best interest be it troop withdrawal or weaning Iraq from it's monetary dependence on our pocket books. A comprehensive plan with dates and amounts would be acceptable. Is that asking too much?

    April 25, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
  86. Leland from Middleton, Wisconsin

    Yes, the candidates should talk more about Iraq. I care more about the fact that we're killing 1 million Iraqis and wasting away our troops more than the fact that my house is worth a little less money. The whole economy issue rather pales to loss of human life.

    And, part of the reason why the economy might be in the gutters is because we're throwing money into Iraq at a rate that is absurdly high.

    But, the only way to get major candidates to talk about Iraq is to make it our number one issue again. That means the media has to talk more about Iraq so the people are instead scared of Iraq rather than the economy. Then they'll be pretty polls and people will be thinking more about Iraq and so Obama, Clinton, and McCain will start talking about whatever the media told the people to think about. Sorry about the thinly veiled attack at your jobs, CNN.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
  87. Karl in San Francisco, CA

    All I want to hear from the candidates is when they plan to tell the Iraqi government the date all our troops will be out and they will be on their own. After over 5 year, 4,000 + dead 25,000+ injured and billions of dollars for them to do nothing toward self government there is nothing left to discuss..

    April 25, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
  88. James

    The fact that you have to question whether or not they should make it clear in no uncertain terms what they intend to do about Iraq is yet another reason I feel being an American is not nearly what it was. This is the number one issue, all else including the incredible debts and failures of our government to the people are intensely related. When will a genuine threat of any kind be placed on the people who run this country, to do their job with a sense of duty?

    April 25, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
  89. CJ in Roanoke, VA

    The candidates need to talk about our exit strategy in detail concerning Iraq. We have invested enough in the way of money and American lives with little progress that is sustainable without our troops being over there to baby sit the Iraq gov't. If the Iraq gov't cannot make things happen for themselves and the good of their citizens, I just don't know what more we can do at this point. They need to stand up now and take the lead. We are going broke by being there and our own country is in rapid deterioration. Charity needs to start at home from now on. The bottom line is that we are digging our own financial graves by continuing to be there. How many other countries went bankrupt because of wars? The former Soviet Union comes to mind with their excursion in Afghanistan.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
  90. Sadie

    Yes they should. I feel the same about Iraq as I did Vietnam...we shouldn't be there. We should be using the money to reduce the deficit that our glorious "king" has inflicted upon us. As far as I'm concerned, none of the candidates are worth the time. All they do is bicker, bicker, bicker. What are they going to do to get the country back to what it was before "king" Bush took over.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
  91. Zach in Pittsburgh

    Sure Jack, I would love to hear Senator Clinton dicuss Iraq. She seems to shy away from the fact that she bought into the whole Bush propaganda machine. Senator Obama has made his case, and he can back it up with speeches and protests in Chicago. Being involved in meaningless civil wars is what the Clinton family is all about.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  92. James, Sun City CA

    About all they could do is repeat themselves, Jack. They can't get too specific without being eviscerated. How about asking the White House to explain Iraq?

    April 25, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  93. Glen Roble

    The candidates HAVE been talking about Iraq. The Democrats want to pull out and McCain wants to stay there forever. Who do you think I am voting for in November? Answer... either Democrat. I was against the war right from the beginning. The USA is the #1 war monger nation in the world. It is time for the USA to stop starting and supporting wars around the world.
    On another note, why are we not getting all of Iraq's oil to pay for the war? That should be our oil. It should help reduce the cost of energy in the USA.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  94. Wes

    Jack,

    Not only should the candidates talk more about Iraq, but I would like to hear their views on the North American Union that is secretly being crafted behind closed doors.

    Why is this not being discussed? I'll bet it's because if they say they are for it, they know they're sunk. And I think it's time the American people are made clear of the candidates views on this subject before election time. I for one, want to know......

    April 25, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  95. Dara from Florida

    There going to have to. For goodness sake I'm a 14 yr old kid and I know this.
    We got in the war a.k.a massacre and we got to clean it up and get out.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  96. LINDA

    yes Jack,everything -– and everything else this genius of a president and administration has messed up. Forget the goofs by the presidential candidates – nothing compares to this adminstration, their incredible negligence, general contempt for our Constitution and crimes against humanity in Iraq and elsewhere.

    Linda
    Santa Monica CA

    April 25, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  97. Bobby

    Jack they should and Senator Obama has a significant edge in this area, and with all the conflicts arising now we need a good decision maker.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  98. Chris Hawley - Maricopa, AZ

    How many Americans have died or lost their homes because Hillary Clinton misrepresented a trip to Bosnia or because of Reverend Wright's comments? The war and the economy are the two most important issues facing America and should be the two issues we hear the most about from our candidates. Anything else is a distraction and a waste of our time.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  99. Deanna Woodham

    Yes, the cost of the war in lives lost, the injured and treasure has a direct effect upon our economy, which is on the minds of most Americans. They should explain to the middle class and blue collar workers how this war impacts them through their pocket books. It behooves me how the people in Ohio voted against their own economic interests in 2004. My second cousin, Tim Hayslett of Pennsylvania, was killed in Iraq in the fall of 2003. I fail to see how the people in Pennsylvania supported Senator Hillary Clinton who did not read the intelligence report before voting to give President Bush authorization to go to war. What kind of judgment is that? We are borrowing money from China to fight a war and send dollars we pay for gas to the Middle East to help wage war against our wonderful soldiers. Would someone explain to these "uneducated" voters what is happening in this country.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  100. Gordon and Judy

    The Iraq Disaster? Yes!
    The planned Iran attack? Yes and Yes!
    Impeachment of War Criminals? Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes!

    Muncie, IN

    April 25, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  101. Diego P

    Of course they should be talking about Iraq but the only person qualified to talk about the war (John McCain) is on the media backseat because the Democrats are destroying themselves with useless issues such as "the race card". Once McCain is back in the spotlight, after the Democrats pick their candidate, then you will see more talk about Iraq, GOOD talk about Iraq from our future president, John McCain.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  102. Jay

    Yes , I think that they need to talk more on this particular issue for it was the biggest mistake ever made, declaring war on a country that had nothing to do with 9 / 11. Clinton voted to approve it and Mc Cain wants to stay in Iraq now this is worse than anything Rev . Wright could ever say , his comments did not send our soldiers to a war with a cause, nor did they cause our economy to go into a recession, however supporting this unfavorable war did . So yes it needs to be brought up more

    April 25, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  103. Jo Ann Cordell

    Well Jack,before the Iraq war started,some of us,only a few took the streets to speak out against the build up to war.We dealt with the attacks,being called unamerican and so forth.Now all these people have woke up to how wrong this war is,hello!!! What took so long to realize it was wrong?Yes,these people running for President should be talking about the Iraq war,they need to stop attacking each other like a bunch of out of control children and forcus on the fact that our soldiers live every day with being attacked in a war they should never been sent to fight.As far as Sen. Clinton and McSame don't trust their judgement,look how wrong they were on the Iraq war.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  104. Jeff - Sioux Falls, SD

    I don't think any of them are qualified to do so. Each of them is has accused the other of being "out of touch" or "out of touch with reality". Let's assume that they are all correct, by some definitions that would make them all "Psychotic". By no means should any of them be talking about the war in Iraq; nor should they be elected as the President of the United States.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  105. Jay

    Yes , I think that they need to talk more on this particular issue for it was the biggest mistake ever made, declaring war on a country that had nothing to do with 9 / 11. Clinton voted to approve it and Mc Cain wants to stay in Iraq now this is worse than anything Rev . Wright could ever say , his comments did not send our soldiers to a war with a cause, nor did they cause our economy to go into a recession, however supporting this unfavorable war did . So yes it needs to be brought up more

    April 25, 2008 at 5:22 pm |
  106. Alicia

    Of course the candidates should be talking more about Iraq. Obama has no problem discussing Iraq. The problem is the media and morons like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh prefer to keep the Rev. Wright issue alive. Obama is the only candidate that excercised sound judgement when it came to Iraq. Despite their political preferences most Americans are in line with Obama's views when it comes to Iraq. McCain wants to keep us in Iraq for another 100 years or so. Clinton will lie to us or tell us what she thinks we want to hear.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:22 pm |
  107. david

    Jack,
    Yes the war and the economy should be the largest issues not Rev Wright and who got the most pop. vote. But that what happen when less than 1% of the people is protection 99% of the people they seem to be the forgot ones. Keep up the good work Jack.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:22 pm |
  108. Derek

    Hi Jack,

    I beleive that there should be more discussion on Iraq, especially in light of the unethical use of tax payer dollars that you highlighted at the top of the hour. Hillary Clinton should be put under the burner especially since she voted for the war. Obama has been against the Iraq war from the beginning, but he coninues to be hammered about Rev. Wright while Clinton will get a free pass for her contributuion for the mess that we see in Iraq. Enough with the smoke and mirrors. I care more about my tax money going to support Iraqi famalies than I do about something that former pastor of Obama said. I guarantee would rather us stay on that subject than grill her about the aftermath of her supporting an unethical war that has looted out tresury, our economy, and millions of Americans that have to make a choice between filling up their tanks to go to work, or buy groceries. Her vote for the war has impacted Americans more than anything that a former pastor said that was taken out of context, yet their are many Americans that are to ignorant to realize this .

    April 25, 2008 at 5:22 pm |
  109. Parker

    Yes, and they should say: It's the Economy, stupid; it's the Constitution, moron; and it's Iraq, idiot!

    April 25, 2008 at 5:22 pm |
  110. Ed Murkovich, Virginia City, NV

    As long as Clinton and McCain are able, with the media's obsessive
    support, to keep Reverend Wright, "bitter', "guns', and "religion'
    as the main topic of conversation, NONE of the real issues will be addressed. You people can force this vital election back to what it should be: about the welfare of the Republic.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:23 pm |
  111. Paul Dadisman

    I am only interested in what hillary has to say about the war, after all she is the only one that can really make the CHANGE. Its going to take a Women to bring our men home and get our economy back in order. Is it not a Male in office that got us where we are?And wants more of our money to continue to fight this war? ENOUGH
    One more thing, the middle east intends to bank rupt this country through the price of oil and the war, and so far their doing a good job.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
  112. Jeremy @ NAS Mayport, FL

    Yes, I believe the American public needs to know that the candidates are fully informed about every facet of the situation in Iraq and have a sound plan to back up their thoughts. As a member of the Navy I now understand why we work so hard; it's because the American public pays the salaries of two armed forces and since many of our counterparts over in Iraq are deceased, wounded, or missing we need to give the people their money's worth.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
  113. roy wardlow Shamrock Texas

    yes H& B should be talking alot about the war,after all John has a plan to get us out 2108

    April 25, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
  114. Nicole from Texas

    Definitely!! With our economy in this major crisis we don't have the money to be funding this war, that money should be used here in the states to help out OUR people. We should bring our troops back instead of having their lives lost and thousands wounded. I would love to hear more from Senator Obama but lately he's been on guard due to Clinton's malicious attacks against him, and the real issues aren't being discussed because of that.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
  115. Bruce Marshall

    No Jack they don't they just have to bring our troops home from a war we had no right to start.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:25 pm |
  116. Jeff A.

    how about that photo? Looks like main street America doesnt it?

    April 25, 2008 at 5:35 pm |
  117. Antonio Famani

    No, The candidates have been talking for months and have yet to say anything! My youngest daughter is 38 years old and has only known a government run by Bush's and Clinton's Enough is Enough. Bush senior still receives daily briefings from the FBI? It is time for change, unfortunately I don't see it any time soon because "The Powers" that be will put McCain in the White House to maintain control of We, the people and nobody that I know even wants him?

    Antonio Famani
    San Juan, Puerto Rico

    April 25, 2008 at 5:36 pm |
  118. RC Lendz Philadelphia, PA

    I think that the campaigns should stop touring and sit down have another debate next week. During this debate, the candidates should be asked to answer questions about the issues only, not about their associations, their slogans, or who is the better candidate. The candidates should be given three minutes to answer, after which their mics are cut off, thus preventing Obama from running on and on for fifteen minutes and thus not allowing the audience to forget the original question. No opening statements. No closing statements. Just questions about the issues. No rebuttals as both candidates would be in sound proof boxes and can only hear the moderator ask the questions. When one candidate is speaking, the other's mic is shut off. They should be sitting on opposites sides of the stage so that they cannot hear interruptions from the other candidates. And flip-flop who goes first on each question. Obama starts the odd number questions, Clinton the even numbered questions. There, fair debate, all questions, including Iraq are answered. How's that Jack?

    April 25, 2008 at 5:37 pm |
  119. Clayton Jones

    Yes, but not McCain. For the past months all I have heard from McCain was how the troop surge has helped to stop the violence in Iraq, but now that the cease-fire between the waring tribes is ending what's he going to say now. Yes a cease-fire was going on during the drop in violence in case CNN wanted reasons why

    Clayton Jones

    Fairfield, CA.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:37 pm |
  120. Joseph, Tampa, FL

    Haven't we done enough talking? Is it not time to act? We have an excess of stockpiled nuclear (not nucular, George) weapons. Iraq has a dearth. We can "kill two birds with one stone": remove our troops and American civilians and deliver a volley of nuclear weapons. In 20,000 years we'll be able to go in and see that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, and George W. Bush will be vindicated! Of course, the form of the nuclear (not "nucular", George) weapons/weapons of mass destruction need not be discussed – truly! Radical? How about the radicalness of thousands of our sons and daughters dying, thousands more wounded (many seriously), and a failed economy for a war of ideals unsupported by the indigenous population? Otherwise, how are the terrorists finding refuge?

    April 25, 2008 at 5:37 pm |
  121. Ruby Coria, LA. CA.

    Jack, Yes but then it is so up in the air what can they say? Then again the republicans are going to play that card so hard, we're not going to know what hit us.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:37 pm |
  122. Katharine Moseley

    Obama said it best during his live response earlier this month. All of these attacks detract from the real issues, which he would like to discuss with the American people. Frankly, I would like to hear his opinions and proposed plans. Would be behaving disrespectfully to simply ignore invitations to address distractions.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:38 pm |
  123. Ty Reckling

    Jack,

    This is just one more example of our government misappropriating our tax dollars! Yea, our candidates need to be debating the Iraq war expenditure issue!
    But they seem to be either A) just debating whether or not we should be in Iraq or B) side stepping or ignoring the expenditure debate altogether!
    Then to make matters worse, we have a sitting party asking for more money to throw at the war, while we in the US can not even afford to buy food or gas to name a few.
    Oh, by the way, what happened to all that oil in Iraq anyway?....

    Ty
    Des Moines Iowa

    April 25, 2008 at 5:40 pm |
  124. John Smith

    Yes and no. Because of it's unpopularity, Barack and Hillary need to hammer more at the issue, while John McCain should focus on other issues, so he won't hurt himself with Republicans who do not support the war.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:45 pm |
  125. FSUBronco08

    Sure the candidates need to be discussing the War in Iraq that we started. However we have bigger fish to fry, Reverend Wright has decided to speak up and out and we have to allow this to be driven back into the ground. Besides according Clinton and McCain, Obama said that people are too busy being bitter and reading their bibles to care. Plus Senator Clinton have to get a hold of that crazy husband of hers that keeps speaking. However she probably would not be the best person to talk about it because she might fear gun fire flying over head from no where. And McCain may be able to understand war but too bad we will not be able to understand his logic because he probably will flip out on us for not believing him.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:47 pm |
  126. Mary- Louisville, KY

    The Iraqi war is the 500 gorilla standing on the podium at every speech, debate and media report. The war should be put on the table as quickly as possible. It has a great effect on the economy but is seldom heard in talks about the economy. I blame the media for keeping it under wraps. It's a disgrace.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:47 pm |
  127. C. McKiney

    Hey Jack –
    Senator Obama can't even get around to talking about Iraq because the media keep bringing up Rev. Wright. What in the world doesRev. Wright have to do with Iraq?

    April 25, 2008 at 5:48 pm |
  128. R.G. Honolulu, HI

    People say they want candidates to talk more about Iraq and other important issues, but they get more bang for the buck by cutting the “other guy” down instead of promoting themselves. As long as these tactics work in turning voters off from the “other guy”, Iraq and other issues will play second fiddle to the politics of personal destruction.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:49 pm |
  129. kessive

    Jack
    Lets be real–The president does't care, Congress doesn't care,the canidates don't care.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:49 pm |
  130. Bill Missett

    Jack -

    The candidates should be talking more about the war, because Bush is just about ready to launch another warfront in Iran or Syria. This will insure that we will be at war during the upcoming elections, when only a "war president" will be needed, not a kid still wet behind the ears, or an old lady who can't fight a war.

    April 25, 2008 at 5:50 pm |