Political Punch

Adam Young - by your way of thinking we Lost WW I and II.

How many of the enemy is dead, yes I know the libs count the enemy as hard working inocent people, but what is the true number.

Lets not let our troops die in vein, and lets continue the Victory.

There is technically a small section left in violence in Iraq. Maybe if libs would stop giving propaganda to the enemy they wiould surrender, but when the libs keep saying we lost, it failed, well the enemy thinks they just need to hold out a little longer. If they thought that we were going to finish the job the war would be over.

Bin Laden even stated that they just need to hold out because America does not have the stomach.

With the Iraq War a definite failure (recall that there are 3,500 coffins returned to America), a NO vote is the only legitimate decision.
Why are the rest of the U.S. Senators in denial? How many more coffins will it take before the U.S. Senators face the-facts-of-death?
Watch and see how slow the U.S. Senators will be before they're forced to admit the truth about the Iraq War. My guess is that they'll wait until there are 5,000 coffins returned to America. That's what happens when you yourself are not dodging the bullets.
Adam of CA.

Zhonni - First when the Clinton's were in office they had multiple time to get bin laden, he was offered on a silver platter.

Clinto also did nothing for attacking terrorists, even the 9/11 commission report states that, the terrorists were at war with us but we were not with them.

Giving money for our soldiers in harms way, does not really say you support the war or not, but it does say you support our troops, They voted that way to appeal to their far left base, nothing more or less.

The American people must remember the "stealth and lack of character that Obama and Clinton showed in refusing to fund the troops in harm's way.

Mr Spock, I am one of those troops and I respect Hillary and Obama immensely. If either had been in office after september the 11th, America would have been better off. We would still have the world on our side and we might havent gotten bin laden by now.

The vote certainly couldn't have been easy for either of the two senators, but they did the smart thing politically for themselves. The majority who voted for funding seem to be playing a waiting game until September: they hope that conditions in Iraq will be better to show that the "surge" is working while more of our troops are dying. What they most certainly don't hope for is a September report from Gen. Petraeus showing that the increased troop action isn't working. Behind all of this is this administration's failure to plan for contingencies--come September, we'll soon find out that there is no "Plan B."

By voting NO and disrespecting the critical American center, Obama and Clinton, the two early Democratic hopes have as George Will said this morning placed their hopes of victory in defeat in Iraq.

As soon as the spending bill for the Iraqi conflict passed, news was leaked from the White House via the New York Times detailing discussions of troop reductions by the summer of 2008. In my opinion this was a deft usurpation of the Democratic position.

The Democratic position polarizes the debate on Iraq by presenting an alternative to the staus quo that is unacceptable to the American electorate.

For the majority of Americans who hope to see the Iraq situation improve, talk of setting deadlines for troop movement over a year out during an election campaign is unacceptable. And doesn't deal with the present reality which we as Americans find ourselves in for better or worse.

The Democrats, by not seizing the middle ground: Accepting the reality of the Iraq situation which they voted for, offering ideas that furtther our original objectives, giving hope for the present reality, seeking common ground with the President shirk the responsibility we have to Iraq and weaken the critical American center.

Americans under no circumstances want to walk away from Iraq and see a bloodbath unsue. The majority of Iraqi's are innocent victims. We have a responsibility to continue the path we are on and take the time to understand how we can do better.

The only hope for a Democratic win in 08 and success in Iraq is for the party to seize the middle ground NOW by engaging the the White House in constructive debate about how we can improve our chances of success in Iraq.

What we saw this week was obstinance on the part of Democrats being turned into Republicans grabbing the initiative as well as usurping the Democrat's core position: troop withdrawals.

RON PAUL has the right idea. And he tends to hold his ground pretty well also. RON PAUL is going to get my vote. Even as a member of the UAW. I see nobody worth my vote on the side of the democrats. None of them are saying enough of the right stuff I want to hear. RON PAUL is saying it ALL.

They didn't have a choice. They risk getting ripped on for "not funding the troops" come election time, but at least they'll be able to look their base squarely in the eye and say, "we stood our ground."

Since neither Clinton nor Obama have strength to stand up for their vote, shows they make no leader. They are followers (of George Soros) I have more respect for those who don't hide from their vote. They knew the vote was going to pass, so they were playing to the left thats all. But how dare they want to be Commander and Chief but yet NOT support the Troops. The military will never respect them.