From William Kristol's open letter,
... speaking as RNC chairman at an RNC event,Here is the video from The Hill."Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in." And, "if [Obama] is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan?"
Politicizing this war based on false information makes him just as bad as the Leftist Moonbats.
Here are the facts; our present course in AFG was charted during the Bush Administration. Full stop.
28 comments:
furthermore he is making the same case as the leftist moonbats (pack up and leave, use airpower only)
Doubleplus ungood duckspeaker. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
I have been twitting my lib friend in Maryland about how they turned down a black man for office. It appears I owe them an apology.
I can't believe the things that come out of his mouth. He's been a total embarrassment. He needs to be replaced, soonest.
There's a reason people like to live south of the Potomac......
This is why I'm backing whoever the Tea Party endorses. Time to take back our government!
...Full Stop.
...add to that, emergency revese, all hands stand by to repel boarders!
Where the hell do these people come from?!! Grahamland?
RINOs...
Mr. Steele suffers from the same foot-in-mouth disease that the current VP does. This ain't the first time, and I doubt it'll be the last:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19956.html
What Kristen said....he's gotta go.
<span>“You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never to get involved in a land war in Asia. And only slightly less well known is this: never go in against a RINO when incumbancy is on the line!”...little mikey steele
</span>
Hey, I live in Maryland! He was OK as a Lt Gov, but only because he never made the news until he became the a RNC honcho. I think I'm a bit more liberal than most who follow this blog, but I agree that Mr. Steele seems out of his element.
He's the Voice of the GOP.
What a shame. I would not vote for any candidate this guy recommended.
Steele has been a huge disappointment. He is in way over his head.
I supported him for the job, but have a serious case of buyer's remorse.
Please resign and let Sarah Palin, Liz Cheney, Dale Peterson, or someone with a spine and a brain do the job that needs to be done.
<span>"our present course in AFG was charted during the Bush Administration. "</span>
<span></span>
<span>If the Chairman of the RNC does not know this, or pretends not to know it, he should not be chairman. I suppose he will cry the R-word again as he did after the affair with those expenses at strip cafes, but he has to go. Absolutely. It's inexcusable.</span>
<span></span>
<span>What a disappointment, indeed. Unbelievable.</span>
Liz Cheney would be a great choice! On the other hand, press conferences with Dale Peterson could be really fun if he brought his shotgun along. :)
Mr. Steele isn't doing the Republicans any good, that's for sure. When it comes to Afghanistan he's completely wrong, however, I don't know that there is an end state in Afghanistan that will benefit America in proportion to the cost of the war. Sounds like Mr. Steele has come to the realization that Afghanistan is a morass and is trying to turn it into a political albatross for the president. Of course that can't possibly work for a war started and fumbled by a Republican. He should shut face instead of reminding everyone what a giant screw up the whole thing has turned out to be. Nobody can lay this mess at the feet of anyone other than the previous administration, no matter how hard they try. Mr. Steele is politically tone deaf and should go.
'started and fumbled by a Republican'
Disagree. Military operations in AF were taken over largely by NATO, which wanted to prove itself. It didn't.
Besides, that Republican of yours that started and fumbled AF also started and saved IRAQ. Remember the conclusions of the Iraq "Study" Group? Of Jim Baker no less? Not picking this or that from the fruit salad bowl, but eat all of it?
It's now of course up to the Iraqis to prove themselves.
I'm... not holding my breath, however.
OMC is correct. From late '05 to early '08 when Uncle Sam started to take back the keys - AFG was a NATO operation. It failed.
We documented that well here - do a site-search here for "take back the keys" and "culminated."
Who was he addressing...MoveOn.org?
That war was started by AQ on 9/11 - then-based in AFG - not by any Republican or Democrat... Though many may argue AQ was fighting the war since early 1990s but nobody noticed until 9/11...
Well, NATO may have picked up the ball and run the wrong way, but I still think we had possession and fumbled it. Not like there isn't plenty of blame to go around. As far as AQ and 911. AQ definitely started a war with us. No doubt, but they are not Afghanistan, they are multinational and non-state. They can operate everywhere. We need to do the same to win. Being stuck in Afghanistan isn't helping us win the war against AQ and associated organizations. The war against AQ is one we must win. What is there to gain in Afghanistan? How does pounding one group of Afghans into submission, so another group of Afghans can run the coutry help us advance our national interests or fight AQ?
<span>Here are the facts; our present course in AFG was charted during the Bush Administration.</span>
Pretty well sums it up. Also explains why we have been there for ten years and will not be leaving anytime soon. Much to our own detriment.
<span>It's now of course up to the Iraqis to prove themselves</span>
Yea, but that was true even before the surge. Did not stop us from expending how much additional resources on a people who can't and or won't end up being on our side? That's heads up ball-yea, sure.
It could be-and from our standpoint is-that in the end Jim Baker and the group was right.
Skippy,
Is it pathological with you? Our present course was charted by Obama when he ignored a good deal of the advice given him and half-assed the surge in AFG, and took forever and a month to do that. And then he set a withdrawal deadline.
Obama's lack of Commander in Chief acumen is exceeded only by his unwillingness to take responsibility for his actions, and perhaps yours to assign them there.
I will have to say that I am mostly with Skippy here. The surge timeline and numbers are actually greater than what was planned. The one thing Obama has done that has put significant strategic risk in the equasion is the JUL 2011 timeline.
The worst thing Bush did was listen to his Left-wing critics of both parties who were always harping about working with out allies. Well - we did that in AFG in spades to the point we let NATO write both the Operational and Strategic level plans with very little USA influence until '09. We all see how that went.
That being said - since at least 2005 a significant number of planners knew that this was going to take at least a decade or more to do right. By late decade - about the time NATO culminated in AFG - that became the majority opinion.
No one can see perfectly - war in an dark room. What I would like is for everyone to decouple the war from domestic petty politics.
If the Republicans were serious - Steele would be gone by this time next week.
You guys are ignoring a whole bunch of things.
One: The US refused, when it had a golden opportunity to do so-to dramatically increase the Amry's end strength and call up A WHOLE LOT of the reserve force, when the President ( not this President) made the decision that he had to go into Iraq NOW, NOW, NOW.
Two: Jul 2011 went out the window when Cardinal Petraeaus moved into the diocese. Fox Fallon already proved what happens when anyone tries to point out the truth behind the curtain. If he asks for more troops-he will get them. Anything else is political suicide. (And Obama's base knows that deep down-ergo they are so angry).
Three: NATO or no NATO, the problem was that no one ever made a case as to why a protracted land war in a nation that offers nothing in return was in the interest of the Allies. Or for that matter the United States. You guys keep forgetting that the elected democracies in Europe are having to deal with the fact that increase troop particpation is incredibly unpopular. There is a certain irony in people who support teabagger ideals of "listening to the people" don't like it when other nations listen to their own people.
Finally: There is a big difference in what is in the interests of Afghanistan and what is in the interest of the United States. Just like in Iraq the two countries are vastly different than what we think they are-and they will never be our friends. That dichotomy will grow with each passing year. If the Afghan's were serious about changing they would have by now and thrown the rascals out on their own.
Plus-the simple truth is-thanks to the war in Iraq-the enemy does not need Afghanistan so much. Its got Pakistan, a lot of Africa, places in Europe and even in the US to recruit and plan. That too was thanks to the grey hair. If we were serious about doing anything in Afhganistan we had a limited window to do it-and we should have done it big, not tried it on the cheap a la Rumsfeld.
No, its not pathological. I just care about Americans more than I do Afghans. ( Or Arabs). Being in either location is not helping the people I care about.
Funniest thing I know I'm gonna hear all week:
McCain, during an interview discussing Steele:
"I'm a Reagan Republican..."
hahahahaha...and I'm the King of Siam...
It seems like Steele is lacking the brain-mouth filter.
Post a Comment