Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

Russ Feingold: After nearly eight long years, we seem to be no closer to the end of the war in Afghanistan. In fact, given the current buildup of U.S. troops and the possibility that even more may be deploying soon, many Americans, and many Afghans, wonder what we hope to achieveand when our service members will start to come home.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

joe

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Feingold is correct. Afghanistan is a waste of American blood and money. It's time to start focusing our military on areas that actually pose a threat to the United States.

I agree, just as the aggression in Iraq was a waste of lives, so to is the aggression in Afganistan. I do think Afganistan poses a greater threat than Iraq ever did, and the invasion of Iraq was boderline criminal due to negligence, but throwing ground troops into a situation like that in Afganistan is just as negligent.

Attaboy, Russ. 3 fucking terms and I can finally agree with you.

How many lives are being wasted and how much money is being flushed down the toilet so we can feel safe. The whole "better to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" mentality is assinine. Targeted strikes are fine, but you don't necessarily need troops on the ground for targeted strikes.

That first sentence should have ended with a question mark as it is not declarative.

Hey, its only 813 dead Americans and $440,000,000,000.00.

Couldn't we accomplish the same thing with Drones?

Hey, its only 813 dead Americans and $440,000,000,000.00

Add that to the Iraq totals and you have enough money to bail out every homeowner who is underwater and then some.

The problem with Iraq is that Capt. Retard (AKA Bush) and his friends already opened Pandora's box so now we are stuck there unless we are willing to let Iran annex the territory (this infuriates me). We haven't gotten to that point in Afganistan yet, and we should learn from Russia's follies in Afganistan that no one nation will be able to take control there.

"we should learn from Russia's follies in Afganistan that no one nation will be able to take control there."

Are you kidding? We're Ammurrika, we don't learn from anybody!

Russ Feingold is right.

Afghanistan after 8 years is almost as bad as when troops first went in.

Staying there forever is not winning.

Winning in Afghanistan means leaving a stable democratic government capable of taking care of its own security concerns and assure the west that no more Bin Ladens will ever be sheltered there.

Canada's committed to 2011 and that's it.

Be Well.

Nobody cares about Canada.

Anyone think Feingold is positioning himself for a 2012 run as the liberal Americans wanted?

"Anyone think Feingold is positioning himself for a 2012 run as the liberal Americans wanted?"

He's been taking principled stands for years, Joe. But hell yeah, if he wants to challenge Obama sign me up.

Wow. Feingold and George Will agree on something.

#14 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-09-01 01:09 PM

I'm aware of Feingold's principled history and I have been one of his fans. This position seems different, though, given that he might be the most prominent democrat to come out entirely against one of Obama's major policies. Could be wrong on this but I can't think of another at the moment.


Feingold is a really good guy and all he's really asking for here is a plan with an exit strategy, which isn't too much to ask.

The new commander General McChrystal has submitted a report with strategy change which the Pres is reviewing now, and hopefully we can turn that into an exit strategy sooner rather than later.

I miss Senator Wellstone.

The new commander General McChrystal has submitted a report with strategy change which the Pres is reviewing now, and hopefully we can turn that into an exit strategy sooner rather than later.


#17 | Posted by Corky

So the plan that General Mullen talked about 2 weeks ago is now wrong? I hope whatever plan The One is reviewing doesn't contain many big words this time.


Obama has never had any problem with "big words" that I know of. Though small minds are a constant nuisance.

I hope whatever plan The One is reviewing doesn't contain many big words this time.

Fool me once...you ain't gonna fool me again.

Talk about fucking retards.

Corky and Taxman-
re:I hope whatever plan The One is reviewing doesn't contain many big words this time.

#19 | Posted by wisgod at 2009-09-01 01:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sometimes you really have no idea what Limbaugh just said on the radio, so just admit it!

"The One"

Still better than The None, the old guy and the crazy bitch from Alaska.

Sometimes you really have no idea what Limbaugh just said on the radio, so just admit it!

I freely admit I never know unless one of you lefties tell me.

Boyd, I'll admit I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Still better than The None, the old guy and the crazy bitch from Alaska.

#23 | Posted by nullifidian

Chocolate Carter is still my favorite.

I was wondering where the Obama can't handle "big words" meme came from, and for the life of me I don't know.

What does that mean, and where did it come from, WisGod?

Chocolate Carter is still my favorite

Only because "Chimpy" was already taken by your favorite Retard in Chief.

Chocolate Carter is still my favorite.

#26 | Posted by wisgod at 2009-09-01 01:36 PM | Reply | Flag: Man Crush on Pinche

The None, the old guy and the crazy bitch from Alaska

Blinky and Winky?

Anna Nicole and the Geezer?

They were not an adequate ticket by any stretch of the imagination.

Hell, they were barely a half decent sitcom plot.

* key promo music *

Hilarity ensues this fall on FOX when an grumpy octagenarian millionaire and bible thumping, overly fecund fading beauty queeen from Alaska go on the road across America in a converted tour bus trying to get people to take them seriously.

Feh.

* click *

Be Well.

where did it come from

It came from the belief that it would ruffle the feathers of staunch Obama supporters - namely you.

No conventional foreign military can defeat a homegrown guerilla insurgency....

ie...afghanistan, iraqnam or any other invasion/occupation is a never ending nightmare, no win senario

placing our troops in these situations makes them targets for our enemies that wouldn't otherwise have any reason or recourse to attack the usa...


Support the troops, Bring them home, NOW!

Russ Feingold is one of the few who tend to vote with the thought of "what's good for the US citizen" in mind.

I have nothing but respect for him and his principles.
Is he perfect? No, but much closer than the rest of the so-called representatives in power.

I agree 100 percent with Sluggo!

"Attaboy, Russ. 3 fucking terms and I can finally agree with you."

Do you realize how funny that post is???
Russ hasn't changed, you have.

Funny too, because I always agreed with Russ Feingold, and I still thing he is a lone honest, courageous voice but I am not so sure about Afghanistan. I do have reservations about the mission but I also think that the threat posed by Al Quaeda is actually more directly confronted there than anywhere else. I trust the president on Afghanistan. He was right about Iraq, if anyone deserves my trust now, on staying the course where the terrorists really did attack us from, it is him.

irregulartimes.com

"Russ Feingold is one of the few who tend to vote with the thought of "what's good for the US citizen" in mind."

I would never deny that, but so too did Barack Obama. It is possible that President Obama sees a threat that is still present in Afghanistan that Russ Feingold doesn't. I do think that the war in Afghanistan is, at least, legitimate and is fought against people who actually did attack America.
Had George Bush only invaded Afghanistan he would never have lost the trust of the American people.

NULLIFIDIAN I'd vote that ticket in 2016 but I wonder....what if he rethought his beliefs on Afghanistan too after he was confronted with the reality of the threat Al Quaeda poses???
Barack Obama did. And he was just as opposed to the invasion of Iraq as Feingold.

Why wait? Unless Obama finds some balls and starts calling out the right, Feingold ought to challenge him in 2012.

When people start suggestion replacing all of congress in one fell swoop, I generally think first of Feingold when I disagree. I'd like to keep him around for a while. As for a presidential run? Unfortunately, I don't see it happening. I'm not sure why -- I don't know that Feingold could make the concessions he would need to in order to be electable. One of his good features is that he'll stick out on an issue. If I remember correctly, he was the lone "Nay" vote on the Patriot Act. Or was that the Iraq War? Either way, I tend to think of presidential candidates as being polished to the point of almost feeling slimy (yes, even Obama, although I do like the guy), and I just don't see Feingold in that light.

#39

I'd not only vote for Russ, I'd help work on his campaign.

And I've never felt strongly about a candidate to do that.

Afghanistan will probably always be a shithole. Let's get out.

Obama has never had any problem with "big words" that I know of. Though small minds are a constant nuisance.

#20 | Posted by Corky

When he is reading them of the tela-prompter. Take that away from him and he sounds like my 6 year old grandaughter. Ekcept she doesn't studder as much.

I'd not only vote for Russ, I'd help work on his campaign.

And I've never felt strongly about a candidate to do that.

#41 | Posted by Lisa

Sounds like it'd be best if you kept your streak going and stay home or whatever you do Miss Ra-Ra

"Why wait? Unless Obama finds some balls and starts calling out the right, Feingold ought to challenge him in 2012."

Years of opposition to Bush and the Iraq war should not cloud our vision about Afghanistan. Al Quaeda did train their terrorists there, they did have a sort of alliance with the TAliban who refused to extradite them to the United States. Sorry, unlike the former "patriots" who called me a traitor for opposing the unnecessary war in Iraq....I think that President Obama is acting on information that is real and which we don't have access to. I have my doubts about the war in AFghanistan but certainly not strong enough to go against the military and the president. REmember one big difference between Obama and Bush, Obama really is listening to his commanders. That is a big difference. As long as the president and the military and our CIA all think that it is important to stay in AFghanistan then I think we should stay in Afghanistan even though I wish we could have a different truth.

there is a big pipeline to build and we cannot leave until it's built and operational...that is all.

Anything else is pure bunk.

there are no terrorists that are coming over here from that country.

BOO!

Obama has never had any problem with "big words" that I know of. Though small minds are a constant nuisance.


#20 | Posted by Corky

For better and for worse. Michelle threw the Samsonite in the Commercial. Or was Boyd the stand in double?

Just like the financial sector bailout, this war is another Government subsidy of America's richest constituents. Big Oil wants the oil North of Afghanistan which is supposed to be pipelined through Afghanistan. But,the Taliban are there to stay and know the terrain better than US and NATO forces.

So throw money and lives at it, until it becomes another obvious failure of the Military-Industrial-Complex. Even that doesn't matter so much with all the money to be made along the way for our societies richest, crookedest political donors.

Isn't it interesting that George Will and Feingold are on the same page? Its the same with the bailout, real conservatives and real progressives feel the same way about it.

But...what if it really does have something to do with.....terrorists. Would you want to be the president who didn't prevent another 9-11???
Tell me you really believe that, if we left Afghanistan, Al Quaeda would not be plannign another 9-11???
The president is obligated to take such threats seriously, he does not have tho luxury of being wrong.

why should al quaeda fight for afghanistan?

shouldnt al quaeda easily find other safe havens? somalia, other failed states in Africa? even Pakistan.

after 8 years the fight is with the taliban, not with al quaeda.

What are we attempting to accomplish in Afghanistan?

Fighting the Taliban
Fighting Al Quaeda
Rebuilding/building the nation?

each of these is different.

When we take out high value targets there, what does that mean? enemies of Pakistan? I have heard it argued we are keeping afghanistan unstable to aid Pakisan against India. as a strong northern neighbor threatens Pakistan.


This split in the democrap party between the blue dogs and the loony left will be good for the Republicans much like the yellow dogs abandoning ship because of the Vietnam War.

Something has to be good for the Republicans, just as a matter of blind fortune...

Obama has never had any problem with "big words" that I know of. Though small minds are a constant nuisance.

#20 | Posted by Corky

When he is reading them of the tela-prompter. Take that away from him and he sounds like my 6 year old grandaughter. Ekcept she doesn't studder as much.

#43 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-09-01 07:35 PM | Reply | Flag: Certificate of Completion from the School of Small Minds

"Russ Feingold is one of the few who tend to vote with the thought of "what's good for the US citizen" in mind."

"I would never deny that, but so too did Barack Obama."

Like on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act? Give me a break Danni. All of your posts are laughable, but that one was particularly bad.

www.govtrack.us

I have heard it argued we are keeping afghanistan unstable to aid Pakisan against India. as a strong northern neighbor threatens Pakistan.


Good theory. I am impressed.

But no, Afghanistan doesn't have to be strong to threaten Pakistan. They just have to send fake-taliban with guns across the border to create trouble here and plant bombs and stuff... like they did in Swat. And that can.. and was.. taken care of.

Afghanistan itself can't threaten Pakistan in a million years. We can kill it with our little finger. LOL

Afghanistan can only "threaten" by:

1. Making and selling drugs.

2. Gun running.

3. Giving refuge to terrorists.

4. Sending agents to sabotage and terrorize.

They are... and always will be... a pest.

1. Making and selling drugs.


2. Gun running.

legitamate business in alot of the world.

Doubt they make their own guns,but I could be wrong

2. Gun running

Like selling nuclear technology

legitamate business in alot of the world.


Not when you are smuggling them across the border.


Doubt they make their own guns,but I could be wrong


No sure if they do. But they do have access to tens of thousands of stolen American weapons right now.

I know for a fact, many of those are sold here in Pakistani gun-bazaars quite openly.

The problem isn't guns all that much either. Pakistan itself makes more guns than probably the rest of the world put together. LOL

No, the problem is, the Afghans are giving guns to terrorists inside Pakistan. We have fixed that to a great extent but they still try.

Point is... if America wants to turn Afghanistan into a parking lot, then please go ahead.

Screw this pest. It will never change no mater what you do with it.

Like selling nuclear technology


Nuclear technology has saved far more people than it has killed (nuclear medicine, anti-cancer ... new kinds of cotton, wheat, corn, rice mutated by radiation... mass food sterilization before shipping... etc etc).

Guns, however, kill people everyday. You can only use it to shoot someone. You can't use it to get your cat out of the tree.

It's too damned bad we couldn't get some industries into Afghansitan. Idle Hands are the Devils/Terrorists playground. Give em sometyhing to be proud of and more than likely they bwon't terrorise. That and stop trying to meddle into their affairs so damned much.

Larry

It's too damned bad we couldn't get some industries into Afghansitan.


Dude... look at the history of your own country.

How hard do you think would it have been for America to become America WITHOUT a railroad?

It would've been impossible.

First you have to give a rail network to Afghanistan. THEN you can talk of giving it industries.

Using rail to haul cargo is ten times cheaper than doing it by truck.

As for their road network... they haven't got much of that either. Mostly dirt roads, that's all.

No real high speed motorways.

We should pull all of our troops out of Afganistan and then send in 10,000 drones with hellfire rockets and mini gun to patrol. Anytime two or more people are seen together, blast away. If necessary send in a robot army.

twister

So, you supported the "mission" in afghanistan when lilaWol/hallichainy were in charge....but now that they aren't, you don't...

I see.....

The anti war movement is not getting the Media attention like it got under the Presient Bush, but it is still their.

I think if President Obam increases troop levels in Afghanistan the anti war movement will explode!

It is possible that President Obama sees a threat that is still present in Afghanistan that Russ Feingold doesn't.
#37 | Posted by danni

Sure. it's possible and possibly probable. Hmmm, that sounded strange.

Russ Feingold would make a better POTUS than Obama in my opinion, but that's another subject entirely.

Russ Feingold kicks ass. On, Wisconsin!

He means, "Lose the war in Afghanistan", right?

tru dat toss...

RRs are what builds counties - have you bought a GEVO lately? You should - the chinese are then the they'll probably copy /reverse engineer in order to produce a shit load to satisfy their increasing needs for locos....GE - we bring good things to life!

from the top:

"Feingold is correct. Afghanistan is a waste of American blood and money"...

I couldn't agree more.
Just as Gdubya w Iraq,
so Obama w Afghanistan.

neither set of wars needed to be
extended. Initially after 9/11,
Afghanistan Needed to be fought,
but the prey has eluded us. We
should now focus on covertly spying on
his agents, eliminating training
camps via surgical missle strikes,
and/or ground strikes and freezing
funding of terrorists by groups
allied with them. The majority of
our monies would be better spent at home
on rebuilding our infrastructure and
rebuilding the jobs market.

correction to self...

some of the prey has eluded us.
we have made good headway, and
eliminated several threats. But
we may have to be happy with that
partial victory, than w total victory.

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable