Some have overtly treated Michael Steele with hostility, with many frustrated conservatives expressing disagreement with some of his more controversial and tenuous remarks.
While he is far from perfect, removing him could be more destructive -- and rather pointless to boot.
However, give credit where credit is due. This is golden irony offered from Mr. Steele. He is absolutely on target with this offering, (even if I personally disagree with any conception, suggesting the U.S. cannot win 'again' in Afghanistan):"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," he said. "But it was the president who was trying to be cute by half by building a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan. Well, if he 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?"
The other day, we watched an utterly dishonest Mr. Obama offering numerous lies on many subjects.
Perhaps his biggest fabrication is the subtle implication that his administration holds some responsibility for the finished job in Iraq. Of course, that is utter nonsense. It should not only be ridiculed -- but highlighted -- as another example of Obama's gargantuan dishonesty. We all know, had Obama succeeded in his Senatorial agenda, that we would have a humanitarian disaster on our hands in Iraq.
Few seem to note that the jihadists had their asses kicked in Iraq, and predictably have reformulated along the Pakistani-Afghan border in order to recover some semblance of order.
Mr. Steele, however, turns the tables quite nicely here. He could even have asked, what happened to the Obama Doctrine? The one that declares the U.S. should not "meddle" in the affairs of others?
The Democrats' cheap, dishonest and ugly rhetoric, designed solely to gain power, debased an admirable mission in Iraq (which they overwhelmingly voted for -- including Clinton and Biden). With an honest media, their turncoat mantra would have been laughable; certainly it was unserious. Obama personally advocated a sophomoric concept suggesting this Global War on
TerrorismMan-Made Disasters need only occur in one place: Afghanistan. It is actually quite possible, Steele implies, that then-candidate Obama could have encouraged the radical Muslim militants to see Afghanistan at the front line, once again.
Of course, the McCain campaign never bothered to challenge the provinicial offering from candidate Obama. The Illinois Senator had advocated some sort of delusional isolationist folly in which freedom and Democracy meant nothing.
McCain could have turned the tables, as Mr. Steele did, with the simplistic challenge: "I am surprised Mr. Obama does not seem to care about the millions of formerly oppressed human beings in Iraq... the rape rooms, torture, millions of murders and utter depravity."
Friday, July 02, 2010
Pure Karma: Steele calls it 'a war of Obama's choosing'
Boy Moto offers a different take on Michael Steele's controversial remarks on Afghanistan. And, indeed, it warrants analysis: