Your story on the votes by Senators Clinton and Obama on the Iraq Emergency Funding bill left out a key fact and drew questionable and politically slanted conclusions. You failed to mention that both senators voted FOR a war funding bill earlier this month, but that bill was vetoed by the President because it included mandatory troop withdrawal dates. The current bill was opposed by Clinton and Obama BECAUSE the dates for withdrawal were eliminated. Their votes seen in that light were completely in line with their previous statements - which your report erroneously suggested they'd reversed position on. This was a very disappointing and journalistically sloppy piece - and the mocking tone of Charles Gibson and George Stefanopolis was embarrassing. This is exactly the sort of bad reporting that distracts the voting public from the truth by twisting the story to try to trap Presidential candidates rather than in presenting the complete facts and letting your audience draw its own conclusions. Shame on ABC news.

I generally agree with the previous post. I was disappointed that both Charlie and Jake kept referring to the bill in question as the 'troop funding bill' or the 'bill to fund the troops.' The story would have sounded much more like abcNEWS if they had called it the 'war funding bill' or the 'Iraq funding bill.' Whatever one's position on this Iraq war, we should all be worried that this administration and so many others in government are saying that anything less than full and unchecked funding is 'supportive' of the troops. How are we ever to end this mess? These word games - 'cut and run,' 'surrender date,' 'troop funding bill,' 'Patriot Act' - are hurting America more than the war itself. Opinion should never 'balance' the truth.