Support of the armed forces is a non-issue in this campaign, much to the chagrin of the GOP leadership, that clueless rabble that assumed this would be a front and center topic in 2008. This indicates how out of touch that party is. Seeing that the American taxpayer shells out between $350-$400 billion a year to subsidize that wasteful and poorly-managed bureaucracy known as the Pentagon, and about $130 billion/year in government I.O.U.s are being written to support that needless and ridiculous war in Iraq, that's sufficient support for the troops. To ask for anything above and beyond a half trillion a year is a tad nervy and unrealistic, don't you think? Especially when you consider that the efforts of the military have nothing to do with actually protecting Americans and our way of life, and generally haven't, for about 150 years.

Right on, Frank.  Let's see, the last politician who did not support the American armed forces was. . . . umm, it was. . . . Gosh, it's right on the tip of my tongue. . . . Tokyo Rose?  Nope, she wasn't a politician.  Ummmm. . . . Well, I have to give up.  Maybe there wasn't one?  That's it!!!

  If true, this puts her at odds with her running mate.

It baffles me that Sarah Palin is getting compared to Barack Obama on foreign policy. I've been an observer of the political scene for some time and never seen anything quite like it. So, I have Lawgallan posting links about Palin on my Obama 1st debate thread, naughty  naughty on him. I watched the clip that showed Sarah saying that in order to stop terrorist from coming into Afghanistan, we should cross over the boarder and engage them in Pakistan. Correct me if I'm wrong but when American troops come under fire from terrorist across the boarder in Pakistan, we are justified under international laws of warfare under "self-defense" to engage them where they are, or at the source,  its not an invasion, like what Russia carried out on Georgia. Operations in the western frontier of Pakistan along the boarder with Afghanistan are nothing new. What Obama advocates is different, its an action that would provoke a response that could explode into a wider conflict, even Bush isn't stupid enough to risk such a fragile alliance. In the end...Its Republican foreign policy verses Democrat foreign policy, pick your poison.

That really sets her apart from every other politician in the country.

If she was in tune with the majority, she would support bringing them home ASAP...

Absolutely correct. But irrelevant as a campaign issue.

A typical American patriot, especially in the view that her own son is serving in the Army in Iraq.  It tells that a mother of a soldier fighting for her country is proud of her son and the institution he serves. Big plus in my opinion.

No question.  Not a major campaign issue anymore, though.