What I have trouble with is losing that war because this administration thinks its tax cuts for the wealthy are more important then providing the military with the resources they need to win the war.

the people who are not supporting the troops are the republicans who insist on sending our troops to war without giving them the resources they need to win the war.

I challenge you to show me a single analysis that shows my position is incorrect.

Is is not the democrats who say end this war that are the traitors, it is the republicans who refuse to properly fund the war. If the republican refuse to give the troops the resources they need to win, why shouldn't the democrats say to leave?

Yet the question must be asked, how much of that image is the Democrat anti-war campaign come home to roost? I suspect rather a lot.

No, that was me!

Sheesh.

Then again, neither you or I have laid claim to impartiality.

Sure. But it's a far cry from that to using one's forum as a fundraising platform and otherwise using it to advance political goals. It's not so much about charges of "bias" but about conflicting interests.

As an analyst, I'm free to support Bush over Kerry for president while at the same time criticizing Bush policies or pointing out that specific charges against Kerry are unfair. As an activist, those roles conflict.

Look; the very definition of Pundit involves the renering of your opinion. You're already an activist for your own POV thereby. On taht basis you could eb called biased if you happen to agree with one candidate or another.... even if you didn't particularly support said candidate

Plenty of analysts I respect, including Barnett, think it’s time to pull the plug on the war. That’s a perfectly legitimate position to have. Indeed, four years into the effort with little sign of impending victory, it’s not surprising that the consensus desire of the American public is for it all to be over with.

Yet the question must be asked, how much of that image is the Democrat anti-war campaign come home to roost? I suspect rather a lot.

I’m generally leery of moving from punditry to activism;

(Sigh) Since we seem to be dancing on the head of a definition....

pun·dit·ry /ˈpʌndɪtri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[puhn-di-tree] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun the opinions or methods of pundits.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1925–30; pundit + -ry]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source pun·dit (pŭn'dĭt) Pronunciation Key
n.
A source of opinion; a critic: a political pundit.
A learned person.
Hinduism Variant of pandit.

So, if you engage in Punditry, you're expressing and arging for your opinion, even if you've not FORMED an opinion yet. Once you DO form an opinion, and express it and argue for it, you've already made the transition to activism for your own POV.

Now, if that POV happens to go along with one candidate or the other...

I am a conservative/Republican, but:

I do not think you are a traitor if you oppose the Iraq war,
I do not think you hate America when you criticize the Bush administration,
...etc.

I am a liberal/Democrat, but:

I do not think you are a baby-killer if you favor the Iraq war,
I do not think you own Halliburton stock if you support the Bush administration,
I do not think you are a racist if you oppose affirmative action,
...etc.

"In it to win it," seems like such a catchy phrase when Senators Clinton and Obama use it. Surely it must apply at least equally well with Iraq.