OpEdNews Op Eds

Bad Debate Questions at Dartmouth

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

- Advertisement -

At the Dartmouth debate the other night, Tim Russert asked at least two absurd and pernicious questions. One is "would you torture Al Quaida's #3 man to save American lives?" The second objectionable question was whether Israel would have the right to make a preemptive strike if it "felt in danger"?

First, the torture question. It pertains to a group that has produced people willing to act to act as suicide bombers. What kind of threat is "a beating" or even worse, compared to flying a jet full of screaming passengers into a skyscraper?

In 1528 an aristocratic cleric named Patrick Hamilton was burned at the stake in Edinburgh for hours. He could have avoided this terrible fate had he renounced his Lutheran beliefs. Other Christian martyrs were burned at the stake; one famously put his hand deliberately in the fire to show his lack of fear. There's no reason to think that Muslim zealots would be any less willing to endure whatever modern counterparts they would be subjected to.

The other arguments against torture are more well-known. John McCain says it doesn't work; people will say anything, lies included, to stop being tortured. Furthermore, if Americans use torture on enemy combatants, torture will be used on Americans; that's why we signed the Geneva Convention.

So why does Russert ask this absurd question over and over again? And why do candidates let him get away with it?

The other ridiculous question had to do with Israel, and its very phrasing was absurd. What does "Israel" mean in that question--the prime minister, the Knesset, 51% of the Israeli population? Secondly, how can a country "feel"? Does any person or country get to act on the basis of a "feeling"? I live in an apartment building; if my neighbor creeps me out, is it okay for me to shoot him, just in case? Of course not.

- Advertisement -

There was another "gotcha, bleeding heart!" question posed by one of the local TV people. She claimed to have a question from a mother who complained that her second-grader had been read a story about a prince marrying another prince. The Democratic candidates all declared themselves to be in favor of tolerance, and apparently Mitt Romney immediately got an attack ad underway using this material. I'm gay-friendly, but even I might have said, incredulously, "second grade?"  And more cleverly, a candidate might have objected to a story about princes. "Hey, we're Americans, why are our children being taught about monarchy?"

Russert did ask Gravel a good question, and Gravel gave an excellent answer. He asked Gravel how the Democrats could end the war, and Gravel answered that they could hunker down in Congress, and every morning send the president a bill to end the war, wait for the veto, send it again, wait for the veto, send it again, etc., meanwhile urging their constituents to call & email in support. In 40 days, he said, it could be done, but all the candidates would have to suspend campaigning.

Gravel also praised Biden and Dodd for voting against the latest war-on-IraN bill. He scolded HIllary for supporting it and Obama for being absent. Good for Gravel. He's a blast of cold Alaskan air.

I wrote Russert an email objecting to his hot-button questions. I hope others will do the same.

- Advertisement -

 

Carol V. Hamilton has a Ph.D. in English from Berkeley and teaches at the University of Pittsburgh. She also writes for History News Network (hnn.us) and CommonDreams.org.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Nixon, Agnew, Quayle, Cheney--and Now Palin?

Separation of Church & State: A Thumbnail Sketch

Pop Christianity

"Liberal" or "Progressive"?

The State, That's Me!

Republican Newspeak

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
5 people are discussing this page, with 6 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

At least he gave Hillary supporters a reason to be... by Kevin Gosztola on Friday, Sep 28, 2007 at 11:34:31 PM
Hey, those are interesting observations! I was pre... by Carol V. Hamilton on Saturday, Sep 29, 2007 at 1:34:20 AM
Hey, those are interesting observations! I was pre... by Carol V. Hamilton on Saturday, Sep 29, 2007 at 1:34:31 AM
Tim Russert focused on Senator Hillary Clinton bec... by pratliff94 on Saturday, Sep 29, 2007 at 12:12:45 PM
I’ve just seen the debate from a contact in ... by Andris on Sunday, Sep 30, 2007 at 3:16:15 AM
She said in the debate that "hypotheticals ar... by Pleru on Sunday, Sep 30, 2007 at 8:34:57 AM