Attention Democrat Voters: Who's Progressive?

[Luxvii08]

That DOES NOT MERIT NOMINATION !! BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION BY OBAMA to MESMERIZE THE VOTERS!! OBAMA VOTED against the war, TRUE ! but he WAS NOT ABLE TO PERSUADE anyone to VOTE like him, NOT ONE! Then... Neither HIS VOTE nor CLINTON'S made, at the end, THE SLIGHTEST DIFFERENCE ! NO ONE COULD STOP BUSH the WARMONGER ! BE SAVY AND NOT SORRY! Search: Your cause is right!" (Obama's Top Adviser ) search: Barack's Trinity Church (parts 1 and 2 for his TRUE faith. click Show

[kstompaint]

Every candidate with a "D" beside their name is "progressive." Progressive is the new regressive an the "R's" aren't too far behind.

[djjennm]

Who needs war or invasion just pull out and bust a carpet nuke on it.....

[laguru9]

People keep using the word "war". There has never been a "war" - it was an invasion, and then occupation; replace "war" with "invasion and occupation" - words are powerful. Please support IMPEACHMENT of all of the "war mongers"; they are mentally ill and Congress's attempts to reason with them is very stupid.

[alawson911]

Any vote for those who supported the war in the first place, or who supported the additional funding, is support for those who: a) Got it very wrong to start with and: b) Did not have the moral fibre to admit it. The "support the troops" mantra IS pathetic. Like Vietnam, the war in Iraq is unwinnable, it will go on until the last foreign combatant leaves the country; feet first, probably. Another solution must be found. People who cry: "Support the troops" have a different agenda.

[kstompaint]

The war in Iraq is only "unwinnable" because there is no political will to fight it correctly. Like Vietnam, we have superior technology and firepower but the absolute lack of tolerance for ANY collateral damage does not allow us to use these assets. The troops would have been supported best from the start by a short burst of overwhelming power, then they would not have had to conduct door to door combat with rules of engagement that put them at a disadvantage.

[traj1980]

'War is not progressive'. Articulate. Pithy. Awesome.

[Greg151gnew]

this is dumb...Once the war was approved by majority vote (Barack not included)..Barack funded parts of the war like the other democrats because it was either that or let the soldiers suffer with no supplies...

[clearchoice2008]

You're wrong.

Funding the war is NOT supporting the troops.

If Bush was marching the troops off a cliff to their deaths - one by one - would you still be giving Bush money to 'support the troops'?

NO WAY because that's NOT supporting the troops - that's sending them to their deaths.

And that's what the situation in Iraq is. Pointless and Destructive.

DENNIS HAS THE GUTS TO SAY NO TO BUSH AND NO TO OUR TROOPS DYING. OBAMA DOES NOT. HE IS NO LEADER.

[striking13]

Well, yes and no. Would it not be unconscionable to cut funding for parachutes that might save the troops that Bush was marching off the cliff?

I certainly agree with the gist of your add, but once Congress has authorized the President to conduct war (as it had by the time Obama was elected), it would seem immoral not to give the troops the necessary support to survive, at least until Congress saw fit to review conduct of the war.

[alawson911]

The argument that the troops have to be supported is pathetic. Supporting the troops means supporting the war. With no money, the troops would have to be brought home, and the war ends. This video shows people the voting records of the candidates. This is what people need to know.

You are the dumb one, this video is excellent!

[ancientk85]

Stop critizing an opinion with descriptions like "pathetic" without providing a logical reason. Obama does not support going into Iraq and he has written and spoken before the war about this. This is a fact that you can not simply disregard by saying he is funding the troops. These are two different concepts, not supporting Iraq war but keeping the troops safe! I don't know how you can link these together as if you can't have one or the other.

[alawson911]

The argument IS pathetic; here is the logic: You don't protect troops by funding a war they are fighting. You stop the war by bringing them home. The best way to keep troops safe is to keep them out of danger. The war is illegal, immoral and was launched on lies and the politicians know it, but only a few have the guts to say so. An accurate political banner for the likes of Edwards and Obama would be: "Our troop are being killed because we supported more funding for the war." Wise up!

[ancientk85]

You are being one sided. I agree with you - iraq war is not justified. I disagree with you that since it's not justified... we are going to let the troops die out there without providing support. Bush will not pull the troops out if congress does not provide the cash. If you were a senator... you simply want to play politics and not protect our troops? That is the popular opinion you know right now in american politics. Pulling troops out right away.

[alawson911]

Congress has had the ability to impeach Bush for his unjust and unwarranted war, as well as his bare-faced lies for a very long time. Please don't fall for this "stand by the boys and girls" song-and-dance routine, it is unworthy of anyone who is able to think for him or herself. That war is being perpetrated by big money and the Israel lobby, because it generates more big money and props up Israel's stance against anything Arabic. They own Congress, and will do so until people like you wise up.

[ancientk85]

They do have the ability but they do not have the evidence to hold him for impeachment. Impeachment is very serious and I'm sure Bush committed offences that are worthy of such but you can't impeach a person that easily! So we have to do the best we can until Bush can leave office. Then with a new president, we can look into that.

[striking13]

Nice job. War is not progressive.

[striking13]

Nice job. War is not progressive.

[TawawaGedarif]

Right.