Prez hopefuls join together - to hurl mud

GOP presidential frontrunner Rudy Giuliani unloaded on top Democrat Hillary Clinton with both barrels yesterday for voting against funding the Iraq war, blasting her as an "anti-troops" flip-flopper.

"She's had so many positions on this war, it's hard to know where she's going to be," Giuliani said.

"She of course had voted for the war, then changed her mind about the war, but then said as late as May 7 that she would always vote in support of the troops. Now she's flip-flopped on that as well."

He accused her of "pulling the rug out" from under the troops, saying, "It all seems to move with the public opinion polls."

Giuliani said Clinton and fellow candidate Barack Obama, who also voted against the bill, were trying to curry favor with the far left. "They've gone from an anti-war position to an anti-military, anti-troops position," he said.

Campaigning in Iowa, Clinton said bringing soldiers home is the best way to support them.

"I think it's important for someone like me who's been a strong supporter of the military and has worked hard to get our troops everything they need to start saying, 'Look, the best thing we can do for them is to get them out of the middle of this sectarian civil war,'" she said.

The funding bill passed overwhelmingly and was signed by President Bush yesterday.

The contentious vote also sparked a spirited clash between Obama and Sen. John McCain, who traded increasingly personal jabs over the issue throughout the day.

McCain said Clinton and the Illinois senator were "waving a white flag to Al Qaeda" with their votes.

Obama shot back in a written statement, dredging up McCain's most embarrassing recent moment to say the Arizona senator is mistaken to believe the war is working.

"If there ever was a reflection of that, it's the fact that Sen. McCain required a flack [sic] jacket, 10 armored Humvees, two Apache attack helicopters, and 100 soldiers with rifles by his side to stroll through a market in Baghdad just a few weeks ago," Obama said.

An hour later, McCain hit back, calling Obama a whippersnapper.

Obama's "two years in the U.S. Senate certainly entitle him to vote against funding our troops," McCain said, but cited his own service and Vietnam experience.

"By the way, Sen. Obama, it's a 'flak' jacket, not a 'flack' jacket," McCain added.

An unnamed McCain aide piled on, telling the Politico Web site that "Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."

At that, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said America "doesn't need juvenile name-calling," and Obama called for a truce.

"Let's put aside the rhetoric and let's put aside the politics," he said. "And the way that we're gonna show we support the troops is by bringing some of them home."
Giuliani vs. Hil, then Bam vs. McCain as left & right get downright nasty

Let the games begin.......LOL

Have a good one!:s4:

Looks like it's That Time of the Campaign...or month. I forget which.

Why is it that the right wing always makes "war funding", into, "Funding the troops"? If you personalize the funding down to the troop level, all the bleeding hearts go "oh we cant let the troops run out of ammo and food". Nothing could be farther from the truth. Any commander that didn't pull his troops out of harms way due to a lack of funding would be making a serious mistake, putting his career on the line, and exposing himself to a General courts martial for deriliction of duty. Stopping war funding is how you force the end of a war that a renegade White house will not do on their own. It is the only way to stop the insanity if you cant get a veto proof vote. Just keep refusing to cave to the Pres. and He'd be forced to withdraw the troops or be charged with treason.

meh, I don't really like what either side is saying. I like the idea of benchmarks for the war, but I don't think there should be hard deadlines. War is chaos, anything can happen in a matter of months, so there should be some flexibility, but at the same time there needs to be clear benchmarks to show the wars success. It seems like either you are for an endless Iraq war or you are for immediate withdrawal, neither of which is a good idea IMO.

I do think Clinton is going by the polls, she just doesn't seem to have much of a backbone. I really do not want to see her winning the primaries. I think if Giuliani was smart he would not attack her at all, but attack Obama and try to cause him to loose the primaries. I think if Hilary wins the primaries she will certainly loose the overall election. I mean what republican is going to vote for her? A lot of dems won't even vote for her as well so I doubt she has a serious chance.

Ron Paul is the only one of the candidates that even understands the Constitution, and how corrupt we have become as a nation.

Read his archives on his website, no hint of bullshit on real issues, the others are just rich people wanting to stuff their pockets with our money and do whatever it takes to accomplish that.