Republican Candidate Johnson Believes Vocal Opposition to the War Undermining Efforts, should be kept Secret. Suggests Blind Allegiance to General.

Want to save over $100 billion of your hard earned tax dollars next year? Vote against Republican Ron Johnson. Oh, and in Johnson’s world, our elected Senators don’t oppose our wars in public.

Jsonline: Businessman Ron Johnson not only supports the war but suggested in an interview that (Sen. Russ) Feingold's vocal opposition was undermining the war effort and was inappropriate for a sitting senator.

In an interview Friday, Johnson's most pointed comment: … that when he and other senators "come out and start demanding a U.S. pullout and that kind of thing in public, it just undermines what our troops are trying to do. That's not saying if you have real grave concerns as a member of Congress you should not be talking to the administration. It's just extremely harmful to our nation when it's all done in public.

Johnson then repeated his suggestion that when there are troops in the field, lawmakers opposed to U.S. policy should be expressing their opposition in private rather than in public. "There's an appropriate way of opposing a policy and an inappropriate way," he said. "The appropriate way if I'm a U.S. senator is going to be not public. If I'm opposed to something, I'll make those views known very, very well, but privately with the administration."

So much for the often repeated Republican argument for having a public debate over the nation’s most important, and costly, issues…except when it comes to war. Conversely, shouldn’t politicians also keep their support a secret if it undermines the military efforts to strategically draw down efforts?

There is also the false equivalency that support for the troops means you must support the war.
And just one more thing. Republicans are always denouncing government help because it fosters public dependence. Yet withdrawing Afghani troop support by our military would be a disincentive? Think about it.

(Johnson) criticized the president's talk of a timetable for troop reductions, saying if the local Afghanis "fear we're going to pull out, they don't have any incentive to side with us … and "the fact is we do have General Petraeus in charge … If he believes he can win, I've got faith in him."

Haven't we finally had it with all this phony talk of lowering the deficit but still borrowing funding for the war and tax cuts for the wealthy that would add nearly a trillion bucks to the deficit. It’s apparently not about the deficit, but about gaining power.

And for those accusing Feingold of flip flopping on the Afghanistan war:

Feingold: "Al-Qaida is operating not only in Pakistan, but places like Somalia and Yemen. Putting $100 billion this year and even more next year into a ground war in Afghanistan has virtually nothing to do with al-Qaida," Feingold said on MSNBC July 29. "It is bankrupting the American people, and I think it plays into the hands of Osama bin Laden." Feingold supported the original U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, but opposed President Barack Obama's troop buildup. Feingold offered an amendment May 27 that would require a plan to draw down troops from Afghanistan. Feingold … contended it is "catching fire" with the public and has a receptive audience even among conservative voters worried about costly and "unwinnable" interventions abroad.