Feingold: Voters Oppose Afghan Troop ...

Feingold: Voters Oppose Afghan Troop Surge

There are 5 comments on the CBS News story from Oct 25, 2009, titled Feingold: Voters Oppose Afghan Troop Surge. In it, CBS News reports that:

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., on "Face the Nation," Oct. 25, 2009. Democratic Sen.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBS News.

Card Carrying Zionist

San Diego, CA

#1 Oct 25, 2009
I don't know about the specific number 40,000, but these same voters who allegedly opposed the troop surge are the same ones who elected President Obama who campaigned on the promise to seriously prioritize victory in the war in Afghanistan.

Inconvenient Truth

“DEMOCRATS ARE JACKASSES”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#2 Oct 25, 2009
Well if that is the case then I guess their health bill should br canned since most voters oppose it right. What a pile of BS. I haven't seen a poll say this and once again we have a Liberal who wants to cut a run. Al Queda wasn't in Afghan. Who the heack is Osama was. The haed man running the Taliban. Another idiot in Washington. Where do they find this people.
Al Gored

South Windsor, CT

#3 Oct 25, 2009
What a wimp. He also wanted to run away from Iraq in 2005. Maybe with progress in stem cell research he will be able to grow a pair some day.
Then maybe he can keep a wife. Loser wimp.
Sall

Stockholm, Sweden

#4 Oct 25, 2009
Card Carrying Zionist wrote:
I don't know about the specific number 40,000, but these same voters who allegedly opposed the troop surge are the same ones who elected President Obama who campaigned on the promise to seriously prioritize victory in the war in Afghanistan.
Could these voters vote for another candidate? There were too of them two- national disaster and supermoron - this old republican Mccain- disaster probably worst than bush himself and this Buraq H. Obama - not good solution but really better than Mccain. Buraq should understand it- he was elected because he was better as Mccain and it gave no rights to him to slash people in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Certainly that majority of people all over the world ARE NORMAL PEOPLE AND NOT DEGENERATES and THEY DO NOT WISH GENOCIDE AND CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY and they do not wish wasting of national money and bln. of dolars, euro year in year to commit genocide and to break human rights in this poor Afghanistan in the name of profits for criminals from drug industry and for war criminals from military industry.
Withdrawind of troops, rebuilding of the country and stop
Card Carrying Zionist

San Diego, CA

#5 Oct 25, 2009
Sall wrote:
Could these voters vote for another candidate? There were too of them two- national disaster and supermoron - this old republican Mccain- disaster probably worst than bush himself and this Buraq H. Obama - not good solution but really better than Mccain. Buraq should understand it- he was elected because he was better as Mccain and it gave no rights to him to slash people in Afghanistan and Pakistan...
They absolutely could have voted for another candidate. First of all, there were numerous third party candidates and at least some of them would support the sortr of appeasement policy that you advocate. Second, I don't know how it's done in Sweden, but in the US the people choose the party nominess through primaries and caucuses -- they could have nominated an appeasement candidate if they had so desired, but both Obama and McCain saw the wisdom of victory in Afghanistan. If anything, Obama was the more enthusisatic supporter of prioroitizing Afghanistan -- more so than McCain. Third, Obama was no reluctantly nominated candidate, as was McCain on the GOP side. He was the most enthusiastically-siupported new nominee of either party since at least Ronald Reagan in 1980 -- perhaps since JFK in 1960. He was the candidate of hope, "Yes we can!", postpartisanship, etc. While his victory was not a popular landslide per se, he did win by a very impressive margin, carrying normally "red" states. He received mega-donations, and there was an incredibly large and enthusiastic voter turnout, and members of the media who were reluctant to jump on his bandwagon were (and continue to be) popularly belittled. No, this was no hold-your-nose-and-pick-the-le sser-of-two-evils election. This election was the dawn of a new age of hope and high expectations. President Obama's prioritizing of the war in Afghanistan was a well-publicized stand of his during the campaign, and the people enthusiastically gave him the thumbs up.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Walter Jones Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Cherokee, Lumbee argue over recognition bill (Apr '07) Aug 7 NKent805 988
News Congress OKs year-end budget deal, sends to Obama (Dec '15) Dec '15 Ritual Habitual 1
News A journalistic failure: How the Kevin McCarthy ... (Oct '15) Oct '15 Responsibility 5
News House lawmaker files motion to oust Boehner (Jul '15) Jul '15 xxxrayted 4
News No Fast Track: 44 Republicans are voting NO or ... (Jun '15) Jun '15 wild child 1
News Korea veteran receives Purple Heart 64 years later (May '15) May '15 wRDEPT 1
News Republicans prepare to pass Homeland Security f... (Feb '15) Feb '15 John McCharlie 3
More from around the web