Editor's Note: The White House’s discussions on Afghanistan disturbed Tuesday’s American Morning audience, as the majority supported pulling out troops immediately. Others suggested a “troop surge” to complete the mission and then leave. A third contingent wondered what the ramifications of a withdrawal now would mean to the U.S. and to Afghanistan.

• Bob: Regarding Afghanistan: get out now! If Americans knew in advance what Iraq would be like after spending hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of America lives and a million Iraqi lives, would they have been so enthusiastic about going to war? The high numbers against more troops to Afghanistan reflect a lesson learned by the America people. Obama should listen to them.
• Elaine: In answer to your question of whether the US should send more troops to Afghanistan, no! The policy of honoring the dead with more dead is ludicrous and blasphemy. Afghanistan is an un-winnable war due to the topography and tribal beliefs. Predator drones kill mostly innocent citizens make them into USA haters. Not very smart but good for those defense contractors.
• P.M.: Please: have one heck of a surge, get things in control in Afghanistan. Our boys are dying over there! Stop dragging your feet ... Just do it! […].
• Jason: I would like to know what the outcome of us pulling out of Afghanistan today might be. Good or Bad? thank you.

What do you want the Obama administration to do regarding the war in Afghanistan? Is there one solution, or should there be many?

Editor's Note: The majority of Thursday’s American Morning audience supported more gun control measures. Those opposed argued that “most, if not all, gun violence is perpetrated with illegal guns.”

• Ken: As a society. we should talk about health care rights before we talk about gun rights.
• Bernadette: Wayne LaPierre and his powerful Gun Lobby are dangerous to my life and the life of my grandchildren. The U.S. needs and must have better protection against guns. It is about time for people to realize that guns with bullets kill. We are a very backward thinking society to believe that they are a means of protection.
• Linda: No one talks about the right to bear arms in the context of an early America where it really was wild–American Indians, wild animals, the need to kill for food, and I believe a historical context of bearing arms to defend against a tyrannical Great Britain which we were defeating in the Revolution. We are in the 21st century with guns more powerful than any early American could EVER imagine. Why do gun rights advocates need semi-automatic weapons, yet they will fight for their right to have them? Why do they need a loaded weapon at a Presidential event with our history of gun violence against Presidents and prominent figures? Last, I believe states and municipalities should have the right to reduce gun violence in their towns just like they did in our American west. Why does the Right argue states rights for everything but this?
• Ray: Please explain to viewer what the words, 'A well regulated militia' mean, and why it is always ignored in the understanding of the Second Amendment. Reading the one sentence Amendment it refers only to members of militia like the national guard having the right to keep and bear arms. It does not refer to Joe Bloggs keeping a gun for 'protection of the state' unless he was a member of a 'well regulated militia'. All to often only the last part of the Amendment is ever quoted destroying its total meaning. It was written at a time in history when all Americans had to muster against an enemy and keep arms in their farm houses etc. to protect land (state) against invasive military action.
• Wes: Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. Most, if not all, gun violence is perpetrated with illegal guns. Why can't we focus on enforcing the laws already on the books and crack down on ILLEGAL guns and the people that deal in that. Self defense is a God (replace with your deity) given right, some would say obligation. What the media often doesn't do is emphasize that the gun used in the story is illegal, painting the entire gun owning community with a broad brush as being evil, but I'm the guy next door, law abiding and patriotic. If we lose the second amendment I expect the first will not be far behind. Semper sic tyrannis.

Who should be in charge of gun control – states or the federal government? How do you feel about the viewer’s statement that “most gun violence is perpetrated with illegal guns”?

Editor's Note: Tuesday’s American Morning audience sharply rejected the idea of racism as the impetus for discontent with President Obama. Most denounced Mr. Obama’s position on the issues and remarked that President Bush received the same treatment.

• Donald: John Roberts asked "where is the level of disrespect coming from?" Why wasn't this question asked for 8 yrs when Bush was in office? Most people don't want their health care touched. I, however, am in favor of reform.
• Michele: Why don't you compare the attacks against Obama to the ones against BUSH? Was that racism also? CNN be fair! I had NEVER seen anything like what was done to Bush and Palin as well! RACISM? COME ONE? Look at REV WRIGHT'S words? CNN feeds the race card, it's getting OLD.
• Alvina: Please don't stir up the dislike for Obama on the basis of COLOR. Color has NOTHING to do with it. I voted for him, but I hate his aggressiveness to CHANGE everything so FAST WITH NO INFORMATION TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON THEIR HEALTH CARE PLAN. He thinks he can solve all his problems VERBALLY. He refuses to get involved in the hard health care decisions and now goes to talk with the Olympic organizers when he hasn't talked with his general in Afghanistan. SHAME ON HIM! AGAIN, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS COLOR!
• John: We have come a long way on race problems in America, but it isn't all about white people acting out against the blacks. There are blacks who are just as bad. The race problem has always been since Bible days and it will go on until the Good Lord comes. It is sad but true.
• CP: Dear CNN–your obsession with that school children singing about the President in a program for Black History month goes beyond the pale. I mean TWO mornings in a row?? Of course, since this non story was buzzed up over last week by all of those so called 'conservative blogs' it appears you are pandering to their sad, small, little agenda to get our President no matter how they can. And now CNN is engaged in the exploitation of these CHILDERN, this school merely because this is on the 'conservative agenda'. So what if these children wanted to sing the praises of the newly elected PRESIDENT of the US?? I think it's great! AND YES this belongs in the schools, it's civics, social studies, music–it's within our curriculum. This would NEVER EVER be an issue if this were a REPUBLICAN president and YOU know it!! It wasn't during Bush's time with those Katrina Kids when they sang a song to him and Laura at an Easter egg roll. […] I cannot believe your station is being used as a tool of their right wing agenda to bring down the president–I don't think you're the one least bit smart or cool in doing this, how sad, how small and how little of you being such partisan hacks!\
• Mrs. Lou: John, the Republicans have forgotten they got us into the mess in which we find ourselves. Ronald Reagan sold his soul to the Southern Baptist Convention and other fundamentalist preachers and they are all race baters. Reagan kicked off his 1980 presidential run in the Mississippi town where three civil rights workers were killed and he talked about states rights. They finally convicted a Baptist preacher for setting up the murder of these three civil rights workers. The Republicans were race baters then and now. They can't stand it that there is a black man in the White House.

How do you suggest Americans move away from the negativity so that we can unite and solve our most pressing issues? Do you think race has a place in the conversation?

Editor's Note: Thursday’s American Morning audience commented on the possible troop buildup in Afghanistan. Recognizing the dilemma President Obama faces with this war, some defended Mr. Obama’s decisions to-date, asking why the Bush administration and Republicans didn’t finish the 7 1/2 year war on their watch. General McChrystal received support for his assessment that more troops were needed in Afghanistan.

• Joan: When you interview people regarding the Afghan war strategy or any security issue, you should state their political leaning before they speak because that greatly influences their viewpoint. A case in point is Fran Townsend who gives security briefings. She is so negative about anything that is going on now but she worked for Pres. Bush so that is predictable. Also, who leaked the general's report from the pentagon? That person should be fired. Please ask any of the Republican pundits, journalists, etc. who are criticizing Pres. Obama's handling of the Afghanistan war why they didn't finish this war off years ago? For 7 1/2 years they dropped the ball on Bush's first war and instead focused on Iraq which had NOTHING to do with 911. Pres. Obama is trying to clean up another mess left by the last administration. The NATO countries who were left out to dry there know that and appreciate Pres. Obama’s pragmatism and common sense. If the Republicans who are now so critical had all of these great ideas why didn't they use them during the last 7 1/2 years?
• Tom: CNN's misrepresentation of General McChrystal's analysis of the war in Afghanistan is deeply disturbing. Within the first few paragraphs of his assessment, General McChrystal states, and I quote, "Success is achievable, but it will not be attained simply by trying harder or ‘doubling down’ on the previous strategy. Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way that we think and operate." Making General McChrystal out to be a simpleton who simply wants to funnel more troops into Afghanistan is inexcusable and certainly poor journalism.
• Judi: It amazes me when you, John, don't have a question to that man who said we need to fight in Afghanistan? And then we could win if we provide the resources. What resources?????? Our budget for War is overspent in Iraq. The military is over worked. Where are the fresh troops going to come from? We can't protect people from themselves. They have to stop the Taliban's control. Keep Al Qaeda on the run. Terrorists are our modern day Mobsters. We have a more serious problem with White Supremacist terrorists here in the USA. Should we send troops to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan where the terrorists are?

What do you think about a troop buildup in Afghanistan?

Editor's Note: Wednesday’s American Morning audience was most intrigued by the question of “moral authority” in Carol Costello's "Mad as Hell" piece. Some praised Carol Costello for discussing “empathy.” Others reflected on those whom they trust as their moral compass, with many naming President Obama and spiritual leaders as their guides.

• Niki: To Carol Costello-Brava! Finally someone talked about it: EMPATHY. We are the "United" states. It’s about time we started caring about each other and not just the sound of our own voices and gripes.
  Cemali: The moral compass in this country is our new president. He calls a spade a spade, he does his best to inspire and encourage youth to be the best they can and he is a beacon of hope to 55% of us in a time when we feel like all hope is lost. Morally & financially. He doesn't only do that for Americans, he has also managed to do it for the entire world. It's about time!
• Mary: I think that President Obama is an extremely rational thinking person who has a very very hard and stressful job. I also think that he appears to be a very moral person,. We all have to "come together" and stop being so judgmental of everyone else (I am including all of our politicians too). I think we should believe that a stranger is just a friend we haven't met yet. My question of the day is: If you were president how would you handle yourself as president and what do you think the populace would think about your handling of the job?
• Doug: The moral authority in this country is our Church and spiritual leaders. The problem is, simply, many people don't have one.
• Roy: we better go back to the basic and that is our creator. and ask for him to forgive us. and to give us love in our hearts instead of hate. because he is love.

Who is your “moral authority”? What do you believe has created the division that exists in America today?

Editor's Note: Tuesday's American Morning audience reacted strongly to Carol Costello's exploration of the gun control debate. Many angry gun owners expressed opinion on why they support the right to bear arms. The majority viewed ownership as a “constitutional right,” for protection and enjoyment.

• David: I have been raise around guns all my life. I was taught how to handle them and respect them. The people who want to put restrictions on them need to step back. If guns are a problem where you live (such as crimes and etc.... then make tougher laws and quit slapping criminals on the wrist. The Constitution says I have a right to bear arms. I also have a right to protect my self, from anybody that might break in my house and also to protect my family. Charlton Heston said it best, The day they take my guns will be the day they pry it from my cold dead fingers. Parents need to take the upper hand and learn about guns and teach their children. IF you commit a crime with a gun you should do the crime. That’s why its up to the parents to teach their kids about guns the same as you would about all the other wrong things in the world. I also support the NRA. Thank you.
• Jason: Personally gun control really needs to switch gears. Clearly it's in the Constitution, the right to own a gun. I recently have changed my views on this. I feel we should have the right to own a gun for protection and for sport. I personally don't hunt, but I really don't see the sport in using a AK47 and mowing down a city block in 2 seconds. chances are you're going to hit something, but whatever. What gun control should do, is actually do just that. control who can buy the guns and where they can buy them. every gun that is produced needs to be accounted for. it seems that guns were important enough to the founding fathers, to put it in the Constitution, but also they stated in the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal. All these gun owners who are against equal rights and state the bible says that homosexuality is wrong, but no where does it say go out and buy a gun. They need to decide whether we are going to live by the bible or the documents that formed this country. they can't have it all.
• Angel: Owning a weapon in the us is a right given to all Americans through the constitution, there are groups and individuals that use weapons to correct problems that is wrong . A person has the right to bear arms.
• Fred: Regarding gun control. Firstly I am an Expert with a machine gun and a Sharpshooter with a Carbine according to the US Army. I have been taught about firearms since I was 12 years old. I have protection. No one needs an automatic weapon but the military and Federal Agencies. Pistols should only be in the hands of licensed people and bond holders of $2,000,000 or more with a State issued license. With no guns in our possession America would already have been invaded and wild animals would kill in some circumstances.

Why do you think some gun owners are angry? Where do you stand on this issue?