Maybe Chairman Steele Was Right After All

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by AAAintheBeltway, Jul 16, 2010.

  1. 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 – 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
     
  2. Steele is a muppet. Anyone who uses Coulter as a reference with a straight face is a muppet equivalent.
     
  3. Ricter

    Ricter

    "...but I guess permanent war is on the platter now..."

    This is written by a person who knows nothing of US history but the official version.
     
  4. P.S. "Bob?"
     
  5. jem

    jem

    Coulter delivered a great message. So I would expect nothing less from you... make fun of the messenger not the message.

    It is time republicans cut the neocon cancer out.

    But being your are a commie, you probably like the neocons because Bill Kristol's dad was once a commie socialist like you.
     
  6. Coulter is clown trying to inflame the willing constituents. Marx called them something less flattering of course. Her stock in trade is to inflame. She has no other purpose in life. I'm embarrassed for her.


     
  7. Gosh, jem, you're such a spiritual guy. When I become enlightened as you are, will I be equally uninformed yet judgmental?
     
  8. Flame indeed. Here is a recent MRI from her annual physical:

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Ricter

    Ricter

    Coulter is peddling a product, like so many others in that business. (Not to impugn business in general.)
     
  10. yes,she's like a conservative version of gabfly, period, or optional... only with a job and money, and a platform....

     
    #10     Jul 16, 2010