Pat Buchanan "M. Steele Not Entirely Wrong"
-
FootwedgeMost people that follow politics are aware of Michael Steele, Republican National Committee chief made some "not too popular" comments regarding "Obama's war" in Afghanistan.
Pat Buchanan explains in his article that the knee jerk response from party neoconservatives will not help their cause come election time.
As noted, most Americans nowthink that the so called "good war" in Afghanistan is not worth it...in terms of lives lost, injuries and money.
I agree with Pat on his assessment.
http://townhall.com/columnists/PatBuchanan/2010/07/07/the_real_sin_of_michael_steele -
derek bomar
Steele's a tool. Who knows if he even meant what he said, since he's been doing a 180 since he said it. And it's not even factually true about it being Obama's war of choice. It's not a war he chose. It was there when he took office. He's choosing to escalate it, but that's a different argument. I like Stewart's take...
http://politicallyillustrated.com/index.php?/news_page/video/1550/ -
IggyPride00
It sounded like he was recycling John Kerry talking points circa 2004 and just substituting Obama for Bush, and Afghanistan for Iraq. -
~U~So funny, everything that the republicans are crying about is the fault of their fine friend Bush.
-
fish82
~U~;414299 wrote:So funny, everything that the republicans are crying about is the fault of their fine friend Bush.
Who's Bush? Did he used to be POTUS or something? -
jhay78
fish82;414490 wrote:Who's Bush? Did he used to be POTUS or something?
He's the guy who created Michael Steele in a laboratory and made him say stupid stuff. -
Thread Bomber
No..... that was Carl Rove..... -
cbus4lifeIs Carl related to Karl?
-
majorspark
The left is salivating over this. They are hoping and praying that the RNC drops Steele. Just more evidence they think they can point to that the racist bigots heading up the RNC, just could not allow a black man to get out of line. -
believer
^^^This. -
Thread Bomber
Sorry, I spell like a kuntcbus4life;414868 wrote:Is Carl related to Karl? -
Footwedgemajorspark;414915 wrote:The left is salivating over this. They are hoping and praying that the RNC drops Steele. Just more evidence they think they can point to that the racist bigots heading up the RNC, just could not allow a black man to get out of line.
I don't agree. The right is up in arms over what Steele said...moreso than the left. Before people on the right crucify Steele, there's a whole bunch of fiscal conservatives that agree with Steele's assessment 100%. George Will anyone? -
majorspark
Footwedge;415115 wrote:I don't agree. The right is up in arms over what Steele said...moreso than the left. Before people on the right crucify Steele, there's a whole bunch of fiscal conservatives that agree with Steele's assessment 100%. George Will anyone?
Come on Foot you know I am just commenting on left wing political motives. This fits the template of the Republicans being a party of racists, bigots, and homophobes. If the RNC gives Steele the heave ho I will be happy to provide you with left wing sites proving my point.
As for Steele's comments. I didn't comment on my opinion of them. Just how the left would hope that he is ousted to bolster their political agenda. I have no problem with his comments about Afghanistan. The neocons are no longer in power. They are in the past. The democrats and the left hold the reigns of federal power now. They possess absolute power to end the war today if they wish and there is nothing any neocon can do about it. Not George Bush, Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney, Krouthammer, or the like has any political power to stop them. In that sense I agree with Steele. It is now Obama's war. Politically speaking.
With that said. I hate that any war should ever be politically owned by any party, president, or political ideology. This should never be the case. This is why I have always advocated a formal declaration of war be issued by congress. It takes all questioning of the motives and answers them with one united voice. It limits political decent. It gives the Commander in Chief extraordinary authority to conduct the war as he sees fit. Declaring this state places the whole federal government in a different state of operation. That of war. It places a pair of brass balls between the legs of any congressman that voted for such a solemn declaration. One they can not easily back away from.
Every war that our nation declared came to a definitive end. Most of those that we watered down through weak congressional language deferring liability to the executive ended inconclusively. The civil war being the exception under arguably unique circumstances of rebellion. The Indian wars could fall under the same. Other limited offensive engagements like Grenada and Panama ended conclusively. Grenada posed small risk and arguably was a defensive action to save US civilians. Panama definitely posed a risk of protracted engagement but luckily ended in our favor. Vietnam/Korea not so good and highly costly in human lives. Gulf war left some doubts but had a temporary effect. Iraq may work out but doubts will linger and Afghanistan time will tell.
Declarations of war are like a marriage. You want war. You want legal authority to kill people and order your fellow man to be killed. Marry it. The "state" of marriage is taken more seriously and are harder to walk away from. Just like the man unwilling to commit to marriage and wanting to leave the back door open to escape if things go to shit, not wanting to go through the formalities of divorce, our government in recent times is no different.
I'll leave it with this. A couple of examples of the last time formal legal declarations of war were made. Wars are serious business. I am not talking about immediate defensive actions. But when we mean to unleash hell we need to leave zero doubt as to our authority to do so.
If you can spare a few minutes take a listen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z0z1J6mJvs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtrOJnpmz6s -
believer
^^^Outstanding post Major and spot on. As a veteran I salute you , sir.