Steele vs. McCain: I’ll take Steele
By Brian Kirwin | Monday, July 12th, 2010 | PolicyI’m sick of Republicans calling for RNC chairman Micheal Steele to resign. The latest fluff about Afghanistan and Steele’s accurate comments about it has created more flack for the person and little comments about the substance.
It’s starting to make me ask why.
Steele has basically called Afghanistan Obama’s war – which shouldn’t be too much of a shock. Democrats have been campaigning that Afghanistan was their preferable war to Iraq for nearly a decade. That they probably didn’t really mean it shouldn’t detract from Steele’s statement.
Nearly twice as many US soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan under Obama than under George W. Bush. Not seeing that on the nightly news, are you?
Now John McCain, probably not too happy that Arizona is the national focus of Illegal Immigration in the middle of his Aug 24th Republican Primary battle, launched an attack on Steele.
“McCain says party chairman Michael Steele’s recent comments about the Afghanistan war are “wildly inaccurate” and inexcusable.”
“The Arizona Republican says Steele needs to assess whether he can still function in his job and must make “an appropriate decision” about his future.”
McCain’s logic? The war began in 2001. Well, using that logic, if the starting date is all that’s needed to determine possession, then Vietnam was Kennedy’s war and LBJ had nothing to do with it, notes Ann Coulter.
“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.”
Republicans are going to have a heck of a time talking about the Obama economy if they can’t even connect Obama to a war that he advocated, campaigned for and escalated.
I’m getting rather tired of McCain’s carping about losing to Bush in 2000, and believe me, that’s all this is. Don’t think a day passes that JMac doesn’t think “I could’ve whupped Al Gore, but I had to wait 8 years and take on Obama.”
Steele is right. Obama has to be responsible for his own policies. He’s been walking. He’s been saying his first words (though teleprompted) and he’s even wearing big boy pants. He’s more than a third of the way through his Presidential term.
Obama and McCain need to quit the Bush bashing and focus on their own records. Leave Micheal Steele alone.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
38 Responses to "Steele vs. McCain: I’ll take Steele"
Um, Brian? I think McCain was more upset that Steele didn’t think we could win in Afghanistan. That’s certainly what bothered me more.
Obama’s mistake in Afghanistan is his insistence on withdrawal starting next year – the *one* thing Steele *didn’t* criticize.
If Steele had emphasized Obama’s wekanesses in prosecuting the war, rather than questioning the war itself, neither McCain nor I (FWIW) would be so upset.
McCain is just talking now to win his primary nothing more nothing less. However, Steele can’t run a party. He’s there to get folks elected and the RNC doesn’t have a dime due to his mismanagement. There are multiple organizations outside of the RNC now running the show. Its time for those organizations to consolidate under the leadership of a proven campaign guy, KARL ROVE.
As I noted in my post, the reason why Steele needs to step down is not because of the Afghanistan comments, it’s because he’s become the story, not our candidates this November. That’s not his job. He’s not a policy guy, nor is he running for anything. He’s supposed to be our head cheerleader and fundraiser. He can’t do that if he’s running around cleaning up messes of his own making all the time.
McCain needs to go as well. I’m no fan of JD Hayworth, but he’s the lesser of two evils here. We’ve got enough two-faced opportunists in Congress, we don’t need to reelect McCain.
DJ, start listing the countries who have won wars in Afghanistan.
Brian, any RNC chairman will “become the story” in the liberal media when other Republicans want him to be.
No one complained when Hailey Barbour was a “policy guy.”
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by bearingdrift. bearingdrift said: Web: Steele vs. McCain: I’ll take Steele http://bit.ly/aRQLKU [...]
Haley Barbour never became the story. He was the Chairman, and he ran a solid party and fundraised well. He wasn’t in the media all the time explaining gaffe after gaffe. Neither was Gillespie. Neither was Mehlman. Neither was Duncan.
Steele’s problems are all of his own creation.
@ Brian
Well said, sir!!
This is a healthy debate that needs to happen within the Republican party.
We, the GOP, ought to advocate a strong national defense and a humble foreign policy. Let’s leave the nation-building and policing of the world to the Democrats.
Um I do believe the main reason the Russians lost is that we came in on the side of the Afgans. They were winning and had almost complete control of the country except for the Hindu-Kush moutain areas.
Lee, still waiting for that list of nations who have won there.
Brian, Barbour never became the story? Are you kidding? His face was on camera more than Johnny Carson.
He just didn’t have some old Republicans on a crusade to replace him
@ Lee
We ought to keep in mind that the same thing is probably occurring right now. Who knows what nations and organizations are funneling in weapons and supplies to the Taliban…?
Afghanistan is the “Graveyard of Empires.” This current quagmire we’re in suggests that our empire may be subject to the same fate as the Soviets.
All-in-all, we’re bankrupt. We simply can’t afford to keep fighting wars we can’t win, build nations and police the world.
Coulter is right and Bill Kristol is wrong about Steele. This is another “War” that has nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11 or Bush no matter how they try to reach back and link them, and was politicized as a plank in the 2008 campaign by Obama’s opposition to our invasion of Iraq.
Afghanistan is a toxic waste heap of nations and politics that took the political and economic soul from a generation of Russians and is now doing the same to us. The Taliban and their willing allies, Al-Qaida, were disassembled and scattered to the four winds by our military after 9/11, and we withdrew because we realized that there is nothing in this ancient and tribal country that could be accomplished by “nation building”.
Now we are attempting “nation building” under some idealistic and utopian “community organizing” premise that is confusing our troops with ambiguous rules of engagement, destroying morale, making the politics of this war a joke and demonstrating how moronic our leadership really is.
As our causalities mount and the cost keeps rising, the tactics used by the administration and their friends in the media will try to spin the truth back on those who speak it to divert attention from their failures. Unfortunately, those like McCain, Kristol and others have shown themselves to be willing to align themselves with their political enemies who are “supporting” this war. By doing this they have conflated the differences between “supporting our troops” and “supporting the war” to the point of not providing a contrasting view, but by aiding the ridiculous political premise that is constantly changing and defining the military “mission”.
Well folks its like this if we are serious about ending all this crap in the Middle East we have one country left to invade… IRAN. The way out of Iraq and Afganistan is via Tehran. This way we then break it down into a 3 part world view with China, Russia, and us. You take out Iran then Hamas crumbles, Hezbolah crumbles, and the Palestian situation will resolve itself in 90 days max. Worse thing you have to worry about is the Saudi’s getting frisky and we can slap them down pretty easy and maybe Russia but Russia can be bought off with foreign aide. China won’t do squat cause as much as they own our debt they are hooked to it as well via their manufacturing so if they come after us they are screwed. We can build everything here if we needed to but thats always been the worse solution geo-politically. The rest of the world is addicted to America as much we are addicted to spending.
“This is another “War” that has nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11 or Bush”
Are you kidding me, Tim? The Taliban were al Qaeda’s hosts; al Qaeda was the Taliban’s police force (Osama was appointed Taliban commander-in-chief in August 2001).
As for Brian, he is either (1) prepared to lose to the enablers of 9/11, (2) ignorant of the fact that the Taliban itself was imposed upon Afghanistan by foreigners (Pakistan or the Afghani Taliban) or (3) both.
No, I’m not kidding and apparently you’re buying the smack that the pro-war crowd is selling and that this is the same “war” as we fought in 2001. And that this current war is going to be somehow a prophylactic action to keep the Taliban and Al Qaida from becoming allies? We’ve been there, done that and have moved on but you along with your cohorts are stuck in the past.
Al Qaida is everywhere except in Afghanistan and the Taliban were reduced to an insurgency in the “First” war and are not going to disappear just because we happen to get lucky and whack a few every once in a while along with a bunch of civilians. Obama’s war is futile as there is no mission, enemy combatants have “civil rights”, there is no strategy to win the unwinnable, and the war has been reduced to the politics of “pander for votes” to confused conservatives and independents at this point. One General lost his job over this debacle and in the time leading up to the next Presidential election, this one may also lose his job…. or retire.
@ Lee
With all due respect, I think it would be reckless to invade Iran. Our CIA has repeatedly told us that they are not building nuclear weapons nor will they have the capacity to do so within the next decade. Additionally, Iran has not committed an act of military aggression in over a century. They are not a threat to our national security.
Not to mention, we’re broke. We don’t have the money to start another multi-billion dollar international intervention.
Is the Iranian leadership radical? Absolutely. Is their political rhetoric deplorable? Of course. Is there substantive intelligence that concludes that we should declare war upon Iran? I don’t think it’s even a close call.
Should we enter into a military conflict with the Iranians, it will be of the likes that we have not seen in decades. The burden of blood and dollars it would put on the United States is not worth it.
@ D.J.
I believe it’s important to recognize that we were not attacked by the Taliban. Yes, they harbored Osama bin Laden and his operatives, but so do many other governments. A recent report stated that we have over 130,000 U.S. troops committed to hunting less than 100 al Qaeda and nation-building tasks within Afghanistan.
Our pursuance of the terrorists in all of these countries ultimately breeds more terrorists and creates more of a hatred towards the United States and its allies.
It’s apparent to me that the radical Muslims aren’t necessary in an uproar over the way we conduct our own society, but are more frustrated and distressed about the way we impose our will upon their nations.
Consider the collateral damage we inflict and the unintended consequences that it breeds… Imagine every innocent Afghani, Pakistani or Iraqi we kill. Think of the enraged families and friends and how they vow revenge for their fallen. In that respect, we are essentially creating terrorists.
I wouldn’t mind having all that Iranian oil. We’d be in Tehran within a week. Nature abhors a vacuum. The world needs leaders and right now we are the only ones capable of doing so.
@ Lee
Then-Governor Bush’s view on United States foreign policy was outstanding. I’ll leave you a few wise quotes from then-Governor George W. Bush:
“If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us.”
“… I think the United States… must be proud and confident of our values but humble in how we treat other nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course.”
“I don’t think our troops should be used for what is called ‘nation-building.’”
“I’m concerned that we’re over-deployed around the world.”
“I don’t want to be the world’s policeman. I want to be the world’s peacemaker.”
“The force must be strong enough, so that the mission can be accomplished and the exit strategy needs to be well-defined.”
Lee, who’s leading who?
Last time I checked it’s still our world. Yeah China has a bunch of our debt but that ebbs and flows. They need us and our consumer addictions as much as they need our cheap manufacturing.
Anyone wonder why no one ever bombs the poppy fields in Afghanistan?
I don’t take any mission seriously there until that happens.
Take away the drug money and the country will be 10 times worse.
There was a time when politics stopped at the water’s edge and that was a good policy. Americans stood behind their troops and didn’t undermine their morale. Americans might have had disagreements about how wars were prosecuted, but political parties did not draw stark lines that tried to frame a war as if it were the other parties’ responsibiity. Americans stuck behind their troops, uniformly, in the face of the enemy, rather than give the enemy comfort.
What Steele did was reprehensible, indefensibile, and un-American.
Eisenhower was the first to send troops and support to South Vietnam, Kennedy declared and increased the troops and support and Johnson greatly escalated our involvement. And Brian, the poppy fields provide the Taliban’s greatest income to pay for their training, guns, bombs, etc.. Does make you wonder why the fields haven’t been blown up yet doesn’t it?
Afghanistan sadly reminds me of Vietnam. We need to support our troops and not have the attitude of division like in the 60′s and 70′s. And enough of eating our own.
There are a few governments that have provided aid and comfort to al Qaeda. In Iraq, we knocked Saddam out of the box; in Iran, we continue to waste a priceless opportunity to help the people take their country back from the Khomeinist mullahs (an option I prefer to military action); in Yemen, we mind-bogglingly consider them allies; Pakistan, ditto. Somalia is a mess that Ethiopia would be happy to clean up for us if we bothered to pay attention.
The Taliban is different; they attached themselves to al Qaeda’s leadership and used the group to enforce its rule in Afghanistan. No other al Qaeda-friendly regime did that. They must be destroyed, period.
If they survive, and are allowed to return to power, the message will be sent that America is weak, and can be defeated. We saw what happened in the 1970s after Vietnam fell: Cambodia, Laos, Angola, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Mozambique, and yes, Afghanistan swiftly fell into Soviet orbit before the American people woke up, elected Ronald Reagan, and turned the tide (in Afghanistan, I’m referring to the pre-invasion Communist coup, not the invasion itself, which was to prevent the regime from pulling a Mao/Tito move).
I fail to understand the neoconservative logic of debt-based nation-building. It’s just as immoral and perhaps more harmful than the massive domestic welfare agenda of the Democrats.
This country is in dire financial straights. Our $13 trillion debt and our entitlement obligations are unsustainable. That should be enough for us to step back and rationalize our foreign entanglements.
The question you should ask yourself is, “Is it worth the destruction of the United States economy and monetary system to engage in various foreign interventions?”
The most politically difficult realm of this discussion is that of “supporting our troops.” I think there’s a major difference between supporting our troops and supporting the war.
In my opinion, if we supported our troops, we would save them from the impossible task of building a democratic (or relatively stable) government in Afghanistan. This occupation no longer has anything to do with our national security and isn’t even a “war.” It has become another nation-building mission that does little else than stir up trouble for our country.
Well I never said I was for a democracy in any of those countries. Personally if you aren’t willing to die for democracy you dont get democracy. I prefer the system we had in place of installing dictatorships who were friendly to the US. Iran is trouble because we didn’t suppor the Shah and let people take over. Palestine could be going alot better if we hadn’t pushed for a vote there and we financially backed Abbas and not let Hammas take over. Foreign Policy should be about 1 thing and 1 thing only American Dominance. These countries just need to be run. If they want freedom let them stand up and die for it like our patriot fathers did. Afganistan shouldnt be free the people there are too damn ignorant. We should just line up all the opium kings there and say look straighten your mess out run this place properly and we’ll give you tons of money and let you grow your crops but make sure you concentrate your sales in places like China and Russia. Tying foreign policy and human rights together is a utter failure. We should also removed all the things prohibitions put on the CIA let them do their jobs. Sometimes democracy is best defended by undemocratic means.
J. Christopher, there’s nothing immoral about trying to ensure stable governments when there’s a clear link between stable governments and a lack of terrorism. Failed states like Somalia and Afghanistan represent the most direct threat to American national security.
We’re in Afghanistan because the government there harbored Al Qaeda and because Al Qaeda continues to exist and bounce between southern Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan. If we leave and the government fails again, we open ourselves up to the exact same scenario that resulted in 9/11. We can’t afford that.
I know that in some circles it’s become fashionable to act like we’re bogged down in some Soviet style invasion of Afghanistan, but the facts on the ground and the in the media don’t support that case. What we’re facing in Afghanistan right now is similar to what we faced in Iraq in 2006. And we’re hearing that same nonsense from some corners we heard in 2006 – this war is unwinnable, nation building is bad, can these people ever govern themselves, etc. It wasn’t true in Iraq in 2006 and it’s not true in Afghanistan now.
I am sick of the politicizing of the wars. Politics ends at the waters edge.
Brian: Once you seriously tried to convince everyone that Haley Barbour caused the same kind of media furor as Steele, you kind of lost me. When are you guys going to learn that just making things up isn’t a legit debate tactic? I guess you’ll learn if it every stops working for you.
@ Christopher
You didnt mention the all knowing Ron Paul in your post.
Ron Paul = Charles Lindbergh without the pilots license. Go read up on ol’Charlie and I think you’ll see some interesting similarities.
@ Brian
If failed governments are a clear link to terrorism, perhaps we should be far more involved in African politics…
I think you’re missing the real link – when there is a lack of our intervention in the Middle East, there is a lack of terrorism directed towards the United States.
Our nation-building and policing efforts do nothing to strengthen our national security. It is, in fact, our intervention that creates the terrorism that exists today.
Ever since we initially began our major, direct intervention in Middle Eastern politics in 1953, we have seen relentless “blowback.”
September 11th was a perfect example of blowback. Blowback is the term the CIA uses to describe the violent, unintended consequences of foreign intervention. We had held sanctions against and had been bombing Iraq and situated a significant military presence in Saudi Arabia. These people view their region as holy land and our political and military intervention is seen as an infringement upon their religious values.
Additionally, I’m not politicizing these wars. I’m simply saying that they are unsustainable. If we’re not bogged down militarily, we certainly are financially. We have over 900 military bases in over 135 countries at the cost of over $1 trillion annually. The United States is operating an empire.
If we don’t scale back on our spending, domestic and abroad, there is no doubt that we will suffer a fate similar to the Soviet Union.
“If we are an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us.” – Governor George W. Bush
@ Tyler
Hey, now… EASY DOES IT!
Steve, speaking of making things up, how about the Virginia Gazette being something significant.
I could talk about the huge influence you have on Virginia Politics.
But then again, you don’t want me making things up.
Brian, nice dodge, but you still know you made it up.
No, actually Steve, you intellectual neophyte, it is you who is making things up.
All I wrote was “No one complained when Hailey Barbour was a “policy guy.””
You accused me of writing “Haley Barbour caused the same kind of media furor as Steele,” which, my dim-witted moron, I never said.
Go back to surfing porn, Steve. Leave the politics to the brilliant ones like me.
Geez Brian, do you always throw such a tantrum when someone calls you out for saying something you and everyone reading knew wasn’t true? Are you sure your skin is tough enough for this politics thing? If I’d known it was going to reduce you to tears I wouldn’t have said anything. You’ve always seemed like a sharp enough partisan to be able to look at your own foibles with sense a humor. I thought you were a pro who could take a little ribbing. Apparently you can dish it out, but not take it. My apologies.
Looks to me like some of you have forgotten the Iranian hostage crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis :9-11, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-11, the Cole, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_%28DDG-67%29 :,President Bush’s speeches about terrorism coming from Afghanistan, http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/bush-war-on-terror-speech_3.htm , http://www.putlearningfirst.com/language/20rhet/bushat.html, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/.
I, as a United States Veteran, took an oath and it will stand until I die.
“I, Kathy Mateer, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
I wish every American did the same.
Yes, we absolutely need to stop bankrupting our country, our children and forever generation’s children future, however, we cannot afford to let terrorism run free against us. We are a strong nation, under God, indivisible (I hope we can get back to that), and the only way we will have liberty is to annihilate terrorists against us and to get back to a balanced budget.
I’m not a genie in a bottle, but this war against us will only get worse, (better strategies) and our economy will be worse unless there is a immediate turn around in government spending. We will have peace if we are strong and we can’t be strong if we are broke.
I have a personal weakness for picking on the stupid.
Better go find someone in your league then. BTW, if you’re going to make your entire contribution to the Internet personal insults it might be smarter NOT to post that picture that makes you look like the archetypical blogger in his Mama’s basement eating Cheetos. A lot of Cheetos.
Leave your response