You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Maybe Chairman Steele Was Right After All
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
Quote from Ricter:
It's nothing to do with socialism. It's about the internal contractions of a group that professes Christian beliefs, but wants to be wealthy, and violent (if need be) in defense of that wealth. They have no right to go all Jesus on anyone.
My point was that here we see another example of a socialist commie thinking he is righteous as Ghandi and putting down others.
There must be a name for this syndrome. When we see Christian's act self righteous or superior we know they are misguided and need to study more.
However, where the commie left gets off being self righteous is beyond me.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
He probably didn't use the best language, but was RNC Chairman Bob Steele all that far off base saying Afghanistan is now obama's war and that it was going badly?
********************
....
Obama hasn't ramped up the war in Afghanistan based on a careful calculation of America's strategic objectives. He did it because he was trapped by his own rhetorical game of bashing the Iraq war while pretending to be a hawk on Afghanistan.
At this point, Afghanistan is every bit as much Obama's war as Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson's war. True, President Kennedy was the first to send troops to Vietnam. We had 16,000 troops in Vietnam when JFK was assassinated. Within four years, LBJ had sent 400,000 troops there.
In the entire seven-year course of the Afghanistan war under Bush, from October 2001 to January 2009, 625 American soldiers were killed. In 18 short months, Obama has nearly doubled that number to 1,124 Americans killed.
Republicans used to think seriously about deploying the military. President Eisenhower sent aid to South Vietnam, but said he could not "conceive of a greater tragedy" for America than getting heavily involved there.
As Michael Steele correctly noted, every great power that's tried to stage an all-out war in Afghanistan has gotten its ass handed to it. Everyone knows it's not worth the trouble and resources to take a nation of rocks and brigands.
Based on Obama's rules of engagement for our troops in Afghanistan, we're apparently not even fighting a war. The greatest fighting force in the world is building vocational schools and distributing cheese crackers to children.
There's even talk of giving soldiers medals for NOT shooting people, which I gather will be awarded posthumously. Naomi Campbell is rougher with her assistants than our troops are allowed to be with Taliban fighters.
But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest.
What if Obama decides to invade England because he's still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops?
Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they're not the ones setting military policy. The president is -- and he's basing his war strategy on the chants of Moveon.org cretins.
Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war -- and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)
I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too.
Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican, we're all going to have to get on board for amnesty and a "National Greatness Project," too â other Kristol ideas for the Republican Party. Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president -- and look how great that turned out!
Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here's mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately.
COPYRIGHT 2010 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
Usually I respect Bill kristol so it's a surprise to me that he's po'ed at Steele for declaring Afghanistan is obama's war , mainly because it is and the ineptness of the rules of engagement reflect barry's lack of testicles.
Quote from jem:
My point was that here we see another example of a socialist commie thinking he is righteous as Ghandi and putting down others.
There must be a name for this syndrome. When we see Christian's act self righteous or superior we know they are misguided and need to study more.
However, where the commie left gets off being self righteous is beyond me.
Hey, I gotta defend my socialist butt from these comments!
Anyway, back to the OP, he/she's(? - missing quotes) right: AF is now Obama's war, and yes it is going badly.
Quote from Ricter:
Hey, I gotta defend my socialist butt from these comments!
Anyway, back to the OP, he/she's(? - missing quotes) right: AF is now Obama's war, and yes it is going badly.
I didn't copy the entire article. The part below the asterisks is from Ann Coulter.
I think she makes a pretty compelling point. She tends to get a bit convoluted, but the point of the article was not to defend Steele or attack obama so much as to take a shot at Kristol and Cheney. The traditional conservatives have always distrusted the neo-cons. Neo-cons tend to be sanctimonious intellectuals who are eager for other people's kids to go off and die somewhere for reasons that never quite stand up to serious examination.
The conservative movement is at a crossroads. Traditionally conservatives, and republicans even more so, have gone weak at the knees at the sight of a uniform or badge. "Support your local police, "love it or leave it", etc. Now some are beginning to realize that not every general has good sense, not every war is a good idea and the police they supported are the same ones who were using pepper spray on grannies at anti-abortion rallies.
Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney in particular have to figure out a way to navigate this imbroglio. If they continue to parrot the neo-con line, they could find themselves in bed with obama defending an increasingly unpopular war that is being fought using moronic rules of engagement.