Michael Steele: Obama got us into Afghanistan.

[eeyore1954]

The quote about being a student of history makes it sound to me as if he's suggesting Obama's the one who got us into it. At least it's intended to sound that way to sway supporter's minds. Sort of like when Rudy Giuliani said that "We had no domestic attacks under Bush." These people are living in such an alternate universe it's difficult to know whether they actually believe something or whether they're just lying through their teeth.

Steve S

I don't think so. that comment is about the method not how it started.

 

[Drysdale]

Steele is an idiot. Egad, I despise both parties anymore.

 

[Ausmerican]

Because he did not say Obama got us into it.

So you cant see the difference between this:'
"Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."

And something like:
"Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of that Obama has chosen to continue. This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."

If you are in a relay race and the guy before you hands you the baton, that is not the baton of your choosing, it is the one you can choose to continue with.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't think so. that comment is about the method not how it started.

That's not at all what the quote in the OP suggests. He said "the one thing you don't do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan". You really have to twist hard to spin this as not saying that Obama got us into this war (or at the very least that Obama got us into a land war there where one had previously not existed--also a falsehood).

 

[JihadJane]

So you cant see the difference between this:'
"Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."

And something like:
"Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of that Obama has chosen to continue. This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."

If you are in a relay race and the guy before you hands you the baton, that is not the baton of your choosing, it is the one you can choose to continue with.

Obama chose to escalate the occupation and the violence. He could simply have refused to accept the baton. He made it his war.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Obama chose to escalate the occupation and the violence. He could simply have refused to accept the baton. He made it his war.

But what people are objecting to here isn't the "ownership" of the war, but Steele's strange revision of history where he implies that Obama got us into this war.

 

[Brainster]

Steele's comments were buffoonish and he's reaping the whirlwind. But the reaction to Steele's comments is putting some anti-war Democrats in the hotseat:

The Democratic National Committee pounced on the RNC’s chairman’s comments at a GOP fundraiser, accusing Steele of “betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan.”

Just hours earlier, however, a majority of the House Democratic caucus voted to require a timeline for the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan and to restrict funding if President Barack Obama deviates from his drawdown plan.

 

[GreNME]

Brainster, you quote those two things as if they were mutually exclusive opinions. Can one not want the current military effort to have a drafted end and yet also criticize what they see as statements meant to weaken the military? Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that the two opinions were mutually exclusive, but then that makes your post somewhat of a nonsequitur, doesn't it?

 

[Brainster]

Brainster, you quote those two things as if they were mutually exclusive opinions. Can one not want the current military effort to have a drafted end and yet also criticize what they see as statements meant to weaken the military? Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that the two opinions were mutually exclusive, but then that makes your post somewhat of a nonsequitur, doesn't it?

Greg Sargent sees the same problem:

By all means, Dems should go on the attack against Michael Steele for his wild comments about Afghanistan. But do they really think it's a good idea to say he's for cutting and running, is "rooting for failure" and is "betting against our troops"?

and:

Are liberal Dems who have made much the same case about Afghanistan also "rooting for failure" and "betting against our troops"?

 

[Puppycow]

But what people are objecting to here isn't the "ownership" of the war, but Steele's strange revision of history where he implies that Obama got us into this war.

We also know that John McCain fully supports the Afghanistan surge, and would have gone even further, sending more troops and setting no timeline for withdrawal, had he been president.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I'm glad Steele has admitted that Bush got us into a war that cannot be won. I would like Obama to realize this is a futile war and pull our guys out.

 

[GreNME]

Greg Sargent sees the same problem:

But you're not answering my question with that. Do you think that the two opinions are mutually exclusive?

 

[leftysergeant]

I'm glad Steele has admitted that Bush got us into a war that cannot be won. I would like Obama to realize this is a futile war and pull our guys out.

Like it or not, we broke Afghanistan and now bear some responsibility to leave it in something other than a moribund condition when we leave. That takes a bit of time.

I have heard rumors to the effect that foreign mining companies will be coming in to explore the possibility of operating there.

Maybe they could hire mercs to relieve our guys. Maybe Xe.. Cool. When our troops leave, they can also take away the equipment that we paid for. Solve two problems at once.

 

[Brainster]

But you're not answering my question with that. Do you think that the two opinions are mutually exclusive?

Yes, I do think the anti-war Democrats want us to lose and are rooting against our soldiers; that's pretty easy. They have the cover that you suggest; "We're not rooting against our troops, we just don't want to pay for it." But they're fooling only a small percentage of the people; hereabouts only you seem to have swallowed the line.

 

[leftysergeant]

Yes, I do think the anti-war Democrats want us to lose and are rooting against our soldiers; that's pretty easy.

Bull flops. We opposed the war in Iraq because it was something that only an idiot would have gone into in the first plalce. It was dreamed up by the dregs of society to funnel more of the public treasure into the hands of uselss people with power. It was the worst strategic move since Hitler decided that England would be too hard to invade and decided to go after Russia first. The idiots even used the same faulty line of reasoning when assessing the losses we would suffer. "They are in such a state that if you but kick the door the whole rotten edifice will come crumbling down." Guess which moronic head of state said that about which country.

We opposed the war in Iraq because we knew it was a bad idea because we had neither causus belli nor a commander in chief who was fit for the job.

We grudgingly accepted the invasion of Afghanistan because that was where Osama was.

He aint there any more. We need to disengage.

 

[dudalb]

I'm glad Steele has admitted that Bush got us into a war that cannot be won. I would like Obama to realize this is a futile war and pull our guys out.

So you would have left the Taliban in power, and Al Qaida with safe secure bases to launch futher attacka against the US?

 

[dudalb]

Yes, I do think the anti-war Democrats want us to lose and are rooting against our soldiers; that's pretty easy. They have the cover that you suggest; "We're not rooting against our troops, we just don't want to pay for it." But they're fooling only a small percentage of the people; hereabouts only you seem to have swallowed the line.

What disturbes me for is they are defacto rooting for the Taliban and it's Al Qaida allies.
The attempts by certain people on the left to try to make 9/11 no big deal..and that is exactly what you are seeing with crap like quoting traffic death statistics to prove that 9/11 was not a major event....make me sick, frankly.

 

[Thunder]

maybe Steele got confused between George W. Bush..and Barack Obama.

you know, they sound soo much alike. they looks sooo alike.

this is easy to understand.



and for the record, I FIRMLY believe in the Afghan mission. We should not and cannot leave, until we can be pretty sure we would leave that nation in much better shape than we found it.

 

[Brainster]

What disturbes me for is they are defacto rooting for the Taliban and it's Al Qaida allies.
The attempts by certain people on the left to try to make 9/11 no big deal..and that is exactly what you are seeing with crap like quoting traffic death statistics to prove that 9/11 was not a major event....make me sick, frankly.

Given a choice between rooting for the United States of America and an Islamo-Fascist dictatorship... well, those girls don't really need to go to school, do they?

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

What you have to remember, is that there is a percentage of the population that will believe anything the TV tells them. Even if it completely contradicts what it told them a minute ago.

So it's worth getting on TV and spouting ludicrous revisionist history, because a bunch of whackado's will make up signs about it and have a protest.

This will have the knock on effect of convincing the percentage of the population that believe anything they see others protesting about.

It's win-win.