...that I wish that the media would ask, but probably won't. It would separate the wheat from the chafe.

"Senator, Governor, whatever... Do you believe that we are at war with an enemy with whom no negotiation is possible?"

Good question, you could then follow that with, "have you stopped beating your wife/husband yet?"

Good to see that you've started '08 in the same fine form as before. I am terribly excited to see which candidates are finally picked.

It is a good question. It would really be amusing watching each and every one (republican and democrat) falling all over themselves not answering it.

I, however, fail to see the relevance or need of the second question.

Good question, you could then follow that with, "have you stopped beating your wife/husband yet?"

Surely you meant to write a more intelligent comment than that.

Would you like to try again? The comments remain open. We are hopeful, but not much.

"It would really be amusing watching each and every one (republican and democrat) falling all over themselves not answering it."

Fred Thompson would answer it, Michael. In the affirmative.

Are we at war with leftist bloggers with whom no negotiation is on point?

Do you believe that we are at war with an enemy with whom no negotiation is possible?

Regardless of what the candidates would say, here is the correct answer: We have several enemies and half-enemies in this world, not just one. If we declare the fight with one or two of them World War IV, the fight for our survival, that's a cover for appeasing the others. We haven't even been calling them enemies or rivals at all, we have been calling them friends. We can't afford to fight them all, but negotiating with them would be a big step up from craven appeasement and misrepresentation. They're a much bigger threat than the lesser enemy with whom no negotiation is possible.

I'd like to ask the candidates if they realize that Hezbollah is a declared enemy of the United States, and what (if anything) we shoudl be doing in response.

The trouble with war without end is that it's very easy to declare someone an enemy combatant and lock them up. Perhaps it's also easy to slip drugs into someone's pocket and arrest them for possession as Kasparov accuses Putin's new secret police of doing. But if we treat terrorists like criminals it delegitimizes them. I think there is an element of grandstanding to declare war on an international insurgency backed primarily by Saudi Arabia (the 25th largest country), Iran (the 30th largest country) and Syria (the 70th largest country). Arresting Libya's agents and bombing them without declaring war and setting up an economic blockade based on non-extradition seems in retrospect like a convenient fiction that prevented a too-bombastic public image. I'll grant it took invading Iraq to bring Libya into the fold. But there again, if the cry had been 'New World Order' like Bush senior instead of WMD and terrorism, there may have been more cooperation and less blow back. Not that there has been much. Excess deaths in the army over peace time. With 3 million in the military and reserves, 3,000 deaths is 1 in 1,000. 1 in 5,000 for the 5 year conflict. We can say the rate is much higher given the small fraction under fire, but that is an optimization problem. $1 trillion could also could have saved 1 million deaths in the States from flu shots, defibrillators, "heart kits", trauma evac, immunization outreach, airplane air quality, hand washing campaigns, air quality... One can do a lot with a trillion for public health.

I suspect Thompson, Giuliani and maybe McCain would answer yes. Ron Paul would reply that we wouldn't be at war if only we withdrew our forces from around the world. Hillary would give an evasive answer in the form of an anecdote beginning with the words, "You know..." Obama might say no. Who knows how Huckabee would respond.

I like Jim Harris reply. To that I would add we have quarter enemies and eighth enemies, even tenth and twentieth enemies. As a nation we are battling the twentieth enemies. Where do these twentieth-enemies get their funding and their weapons. Why don't we go after their suppliers? Aren't they the real enemy?

Here is part of Mike Huckabee's answer:

None of us would write a check to Osama bin Laden, slip it in a Hallmark card and send it off to him. But that's what we're doing every time we pull into a gas station. We're paying for both sides in the war on terror - our side with our tax dollars, the terrorists' side with our gas dollars.

Who says the war won't end? And why?

I like Jim Harris reply.

Of course you do.

Here is part of Mike Huckabee's answer

That's not an answer to my question. It's simply more economic ignorance from Mike Huckabee.

It's really two questions: Do you believe that we are at war with an enemy? With whom no negotiation is possible?

There are definitely some among our enemies with whom no negotiation is possible. However, there is probably a spectrum, from those who will side with us no matter what to those who our mostly on our side to those who lean towards our enemies to those who strongly side with our enemies to those who are intractable. I think it does make sense to try to pull as many people away from the ranks of allies of those-who-won't negotiate. And you also have to simply eliminate those who won't negotiate, because they are trying to eliminate you. The best way to pull away those allies is certainly up for debate. It would seem to me that oftentimes presenting a strong front, rather than negotiating, is more likely to pull away the enemy's allies.