Bill Kristol to Michael Steele: Resign as chairman of the Republican party

[low preference guy]

It's because Steele said "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?"

The whole thing (http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/letter-michael-steele):


Dear Michael,

You are, I know, a patriot. So I ask you to consider, over this July 4 weekend, doing an act of service for the country you love: Resign as chairman of the Republican party.

Your tenure has of course been marked by gaffes and embarrassments, but I for one have never paid much attention to them, and have never thought they would matter much to the success of the causes and principles we share. But now you have said, about the war in Afghanistan, speaking as RNC chairman at an RNC event, "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?"

Needless to say, the war in Afghanistan was not "a war of Obama’s choosing." It has been prosecuted by the United States under Presidents Bush and Obama. Republicans have consistently supported the effort. Indeed, as the DNC Communications Director (of all people) has said, your statement "puts [you] at odds with about 100 percent of the Republican Party."

And not on a trivial matter. At a time when Gen. Petraeus has just taken over command, when Republicans in Congress are pushing for a clean war funding resolution, when Republicans around the country are doing their best to rally their fellow citizens behind the mission, your comment is more than an embarrassment. It’s an affront, both to the honor of the Republican party and to the commitment of the soldiers fighting to accomplish the mission they’ve been asked to take on by our elected leaders.

There are, of course, those who think we should pull out of Afghanistan, and they’re certainly entitled to make their case. But one of them shouldn't be the chairman of the Republican party.

Sincerely yours,

William Kristol

[low preference guy]

I agree completely with Steele on this. The decision to escalate the war was Obama's, and had he known history, he would know that it couldn't work.

[MRoCkEd]

Another +1 for Steele, who Ron Paul says is the only chairman who has reached out to him.

http://r3publican.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ron-paul-steele.jpg

[specsaregood]

Bill Kristol wants the American way of life to completely collapse, that is why he disagrees.

[FrankRep]

Neoconservatives are delighted with Obama's appointments, recognizing that the new guard Obama is putting in place is very much like the old. By Partick Krey


Neoconservatism in the Obama Age (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/646)


Patrick Krey | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
06 January 2009


Neoconservatives are elated with Obama's appointments, recognizing that the new guard is very much like the old.

Some traditional conservatives were hoping that with Bush leaving office and Obama coming in, the neocons would be put out of power, but sadly, they're not going away that easily. Contrary to the public's perception of President-elect Obama as the peace candidate, he has been extremely hawkish in his appointments. The selection of Joe Biden as a running mate was a sign that the globalist and hawkish wing of the Democratic Party (where the neocons originally hailed from) was going to be strongly represented in an Obama administration. Back in 1999, Joe Biden cosponsored a resolution with John McCain and Joe Lieberman to use ground troops in Serbia, coinciding with the wishes of a neoconservative think tank called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC).

Obama's multiple appointments of liberal war hawks, former Clinton officials, and individuals with neocon ties is worrisome. Investigative reporter Robert Dreyfuss reported on the close alliance between these new appointments and the neocons. "Several top advisers to Obama — including Tony Lake, United Nations ambassador-designate Susan Rice, Tom Daschle and Dennis Ross, along with leading Democratic hawks like Richard Holbrooke, close to vice president-elect Joe Biden or secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton — have made common cause with war-minded think-tank hawks at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and other hard-line institutes."

Former CIA Officer Phillip Giraldi has warned that top Obama adviser Dennis Ross was part of a task force consisting mostly of neocons that issued a report that "advocated talking to Tehran to give it a chance to surrender on all key issues before attacking it, urging the next president to build up forces for the assault from day one of the new administration." The task force recommended that failure of the talks be followed up with a "show of force" in the region, involving a blockade of Iranian gas imports and oil exports, which would in turn be followed up with "kinetic action," a U.S. assault on Iran. That doesn't exactly sound like the diplomatic approach trumpeted by Obama on the campaign trail. Ross has worked closely with neocon think tanks like PNAC and WINEP, as well as for FOX News, where he was a strong advocate for war against Iraq.

The appointment of Marine Corps Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser is also a bad omen according to Doug Bandow of the American Conservative Defense Alliance. Bandow writes that Jones is "an advocate of higher military spending, and his most famous proposal was disastrously bad: to place a NATO force, presumably including Americans, in the West Bank. Is there a dumber region in which to station American soldiers and Marines? Maybe Iraq, but then the Palestinian territories come in at a strong second place."

These appointments seem to be in touch with Obama's interventionist foreign policy stances which were summed up by journalist and author Jeremy Scahill. Scahill writes:



Several of the individuals at the center of Obama's transition and emerging foreign policy teams were top players in creating and implementing foreign policies that would pave the way for projects eventually carried out under the Bush/Cheney administration. With their assistance, Obama has already charted out several hawkish stances. Among them:

• His plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan;

• An Iraq plan that could turn into a downsized and rebranded occupation that keeps U.S. forces in Iraq for the foreseeable future;

• His labeling of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist organization;"

• His pledge to use unilateral force inside of Pakistan to defend U.S. interests;

• His position, presented before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), that Jerusalem "must remain undivided" — a remark that infuriated Palestinian officials and which he later attempted to reframe;

• His plan to continue the War on Drugs, a backdoor U.S. counterinsurgency campaign in Central and Latin America;

• His refusal to "rule out" using Blackwater and other armed private forces in U.S. war zones, despite previously introducing legislation to regulate these companies and bring them under U.S. law.


Another red flag for the American public is that the neocons seem to be beside themselves with adoration for Obama. Phillip Giraldi explained the establishment praise for Obama as pundits who "joined the song of praise being raised by neocons and faux-conservatives alike lauding Barack Obama's cabinet for its 'moderation' and 'centrism.' What that really means, of course, is that they are all recognizing that Obama will preserve the Bush status quo when it comes to foreign policy, a heady mix of American exceptionalism combined with muscular democracy promotion and interventionism." William Kristol had very kind words for the president-elect and stated that he's poised for presidential success. John McCain even applauded the appointments!

Rush Limbaugh praised the appointment of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state as "brilliant."

Senator Joe Lieberman, who broke ranks with Democrats allegedly over foreign policy concerns to endorse McCain, called the appointments "virtually perfect."

Neocon David Horowitz actually reprimanded conservative activists whom he felt were unnecessarily filing lawsuits regarding Barack's citizenship status, not because he didn't believe the claims, but rather because Obama has shown his true hawkish nature for which conservatives should be appreciative. "Now, as president-elect he has just formed the most conservative foreign policy team since John F. Kennedy, one well to the right of Bill Clinton. Where is your gratitude for that? What is more relevant in his Hillary Clinton pick — her prickly past or the fact that except for Joe Lieberman, she is the Democrat most identified with support for the Iraq War?" This neocon wants conservative activists to be grateful for Hillary Clinton!? His most revealing response was when he exclaimed, "And please don't write me about the Constitution." These last two statements should put to rest any notion that neocons care about traditional conservative values. It would appear that as long as their lust for war and global democratic revolution is satisfied, they do not care about much else.

This dynamic of neocons versus liberal interventionists seems to be along the lines of good cop vs. bad cop. Both parties want the same result, but they play opposing roles to con the third party (in this case, independent voters) into trusting them even though they both share the same goals. And when you really think about it: what is the difference between a neocon and a liberal war hawk anyway? Not much of a difference at all considering that neocons were liberal war hawks a few decades ago. Neocon Max Boot admitted this much while praising Obama. "I am gob smacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain.... [Hillary] Clinton and [James] Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for 'neo-liberalism' which is not so different in many respects from 'neo-conservativism.'"

Constitutional conservatives could really distinguish themselves on foreign policy from the neocons of the Bush years and the liberal hawks that Obama is bringing to the White House. Doug Bandow, of the American Conservative Defense Alliance, suggests:



The only way to change this dangerous dynamic is for those who believe in limited government and individual liberty to use their votes to punish war-mongers in either party.... And given the current ascendancy of liberals within the Democratic Party, foreign policy offers an opportunity for the Right.... Rather than attempt to outspend the Democrats on defense and promote even more frivolous interventions than those advanced by the acolytes of Madeleine Albright, conservatives should offer a genuine alternative: republican noninterventionism. Defend America, but turn military responsibilities over to rich allies in Asia and Europe and avoid involvement in tragic but irrelevant Third World conflicts. Stand for the Constitution and defend republic over empire against Wilsonians on the Left and Right. [Emphasis added.]

[angelatc]

I posted on Steele's Facebook wall!

[Krugerrand]

An attack by Kristol is like an endorsement for Liberty.

[nate895]

I officially like Michael Steele. Any Republican who is an enemy of Bill Kristol is a friend of mine.

[low preference guy]

This is the time for Ron Paul to praise this action by Steele (not his whole chairmanship) and call for the troops to come home.

[itshappening]

Go Ron Go !! Show him some support

[tremendoustie]

It's because Steele said "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?"

The whole thing:

Hey, I suddenly like Steele! :)

Anyone who Bill Kristol hates can't be all bad.

[specsaregood]

I posted on Steele's Facebook wall!

Link to where to post? I'm not very familiar with facebook but have a relatively unused account that I would like to leave a message with.

[South Park Fan]

Steele ought to flip Kristol the bird.

[Kýrie eléison]

Hey, I suddenly like Steele! :)

Anyone who Bill Kristol hates can't be all bad.

Lmao, me too. Where did Steele make the comments?

[Legend1104]

That is a good point for Paul to publically endorse Steele's statement. It would help him gain more support from Steele. This way Steele could be of more help in a possible 2012 run.

[Dustancostine]

Lmao, me too. Where did Steele make the comments?

YouTube - Michael Steele Opposing the Troops in Afghanistan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIRmkef2wZo)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Just when you think you could not possibly dislike Steele any more than you already do...

A more powerful enemy to liberty comes along reminding you the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

[lester1/2jr]

gawker probably is trying to figure out if steele is an anti semite or kristol is a racist before they run this

[paulitics]

I officially like Michael Steele. Any Republican who is an enemy of Bill Kristol is a friend of mine.

Wow, I guess it's official for me too. We need to get behind Steele now. This can really differentiate the libertarians from the neocons and teocons.

Steele sounds better than John Stossel this week. My head is getting dizzy. Steele needs to stay!

[RM918]

Not 100 Percent of the Republican Party anymore, Kristol.

And Democrats are jumping all over him for being 'unpatriotic'. Wow. Anyone who doesn't see how there's no difference between the parties has their head stuck in the sand.

But it doesn't matter. Steele released a statement saying 'We must win' in Afghanistan, proving that Republicans only sometimes hate wars run by Democrats and Democrats only hate wars being run by Republicans.

[ctiger2]

Bill Kristol is über Zionist

[Elwar]

"Never get involved in a land war in Asia" --Douglas MacArthur to President John F. Kennedy in 1961

[Elwar]

Kristol probably saw this and was upset that Steele said that Ron Paul was "done".

YouTube - Ron Paul Wins Debate Despite Being Defamed by Pundits (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXE45ncH1a8&start=04m35s)

[Romulus]

Good for Steele. Too bad he doesnt have the balls to back up his statements... he's already back peddling.

Guys like this know right from wrong, they just need some encouragement.

[erowe1]

Could you put the link in the OP?

[erowe1]

Hey, I suddenly like Steele! :)

Anyone who Bill Kristol hates can't be all bad.

I seriously think this one incident might be enough to make him less evil than every other possible RNC chair.

[low preference guy]

Could you put the link in the OP?

done.

[low preference guy]

YouTube - Michael Steele Opposing the Troops in Afghanistan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIRmkef2wZo&feature=player_embedded#%21)

[RileyE104]

I posted on Steele's Facebook wall!


Does he have an official FB?
I found like 4 different ones with thousands of fans so IDK which one to comment on.

[catdd]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Anti Federalist]

Oh hell, another thread of quoting everybody.

Yeah! What all y'all said!!!

An enemy of Kristol is friend of mine.

[jmdrake]

Let's see. Michael Steel lets staffers using RNC money to pay for strippers and that's ok. But when he questions the Afghanistan war the neocons want his head on a platter? :rolleyes: Of course there is a bit of hypocrisy here. This was initially a war of Bush's choosing. Obama is wrong to continue it. More and more conservatives are waking up to the fact that the war in Afghanistan is a fraud.


YouTube - RAW VIDEO: Michael Steele, "Afghanistan is a war of Obama's choosing" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KojJ-dyYtA)

YouTube - Michael Savage - Why Are We in Afghanistan?? - (September 1, 2009) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOKMCjSsICM)

[Elwar]

War isn't as much fun when your guy isn't the one in charge.

[low preference guy]

hotair happens to have a good writeup, surprisingly.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/02/michael-steele-afghanistan-is-a-war-of-obamas-choosing/

[jmdrake]

hotair happens to have a good writeup, surprisingly.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/02/michael-steele-afghanistan-is-a-war-of-obamas-choosing/

Good find. This was posted in the comments.

YouTube - Ron Paul: Most Powerful Army Fighting War Against People Who Have NO Tanks! NO Planes! NO Ships! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skWt4uUwzSs)

[catdd]

It's Obama's war now. He can stop it or intensify it, but it is his war.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

How is what he said not true. Bush fought the war with special ops and drones, Obama sent in the troops.........which is becoming an epic fail....hence why Bush never did it.

[low preference guy]

How is what he said not true. Bush fought the war with special ops and drones, Obama sent in the troops.........which is becoming an epic fail....hence why Bush never did it.

Steele is right.

Making a gaffe means speaking the truth by accident. That's exactly what Steele did.

[anaconda]

Well apparently even Bill Kristol gets to finally be right on something!

[erowe1]

Well apparently even Bill Kristol gets to finally be right on something!

What's he right about?

[jmdrake]

How is what he said not true. Bush fought the war with special ops and drones, Obama sent in the troops.........which is becoming an epic fail....hence why Bush never did it.

Not so. The reason Bush didn't send more troops to Afghanistan sooner is because for most of his presidency Iraq was total FUBAR and he couldn't afford to send more troops to the quieter theater in Afghanistan. Toward the end of his term Bush sent his own "quiet surge" into Afghanistan.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,419001,00.html

Obama is a continuation of the Bush doctrine. And that doctrine itself is an "epic fail".

[erowe1]

Obama is a continuation of the Bush doctrine. And that doctrine itself is an "epic fail".

Obama definitely campaigned on the position that Bush wasn't doing enough in Afghanistan, that McCain also wasn't proposing an ambitious enough engagement there, and that he was the guy that people wanting more war in Afghanistan should vote for.

[johnrocks]

My disdain of Steele just dropped considerably, if Kristol opposes him, there MUST be some good in the man.

[jmdrake]

Obama definitely campaigned on the position that Bush wasn't doing enough in Afghanistan, that McCain also wasn't proposing an ambitious enough engagement there, and that he was the guy that people wanting more war in Afghanistan should vote for.

Yes that's true. But the way he spun it was that since we were "really attacked from Afghanistan", Bush was wrong to divert our resources to Iraq. (And Obama is correct in this assertion. If Osama Bin Laden was still alive when we invaded Afghanistan, the reason he escaped was because the CIA operative "jawbreaker" didn't get the troops he requested to cut off OBL escape because they were diverted to Iraq.) Still all of that is beside the point. These puppet politicians all say what they think voters want to hear at any given time, but they all do the same thing. Bush had started "surging" more troops to Afghanistan before he left office. Obama let it slip while he was running that he would be willing to keep combat troops in Iraq past 2013 even though he promised to have them out 16 months after being elected. And Bush negotiated a partial troop pullout from Iraq in 2010 while he was still in office. The same agenda gets executed in slightly different ways by different puppets, but the same masters pull the strings.

[sailingaway]

It's because Steele said "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?"

The whole thing (http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/letter-michael-steele):

I think Steele should resign and Kristol should take up sack cloth and ashes and retreat from public life.

Would sure brighten MY perspective on things....

[klamath]

+1 for Steele! Don't back down. It is Obama's war now. He could have ended Bush's war on Jan 20 2009. He didn't it is his.

[tnvoter]

For anyone who didn't already know, Kristol is from a family of Neo-Con founders of sorts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Kristol

[FrankRep]

For anyone who didn't already know, Kristol is from a family of Neo-Con founders of sorts.

Background on Irving Kristol:



Irving Kristol, the man who delightedly accepted the title of neoconservatism’s “godfather,” passed away on September 18 at age 89. by John F. McManus


The Passing of Irving Kristol (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/1951-the-passing-of-irving-kristol)


John F. McManus | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
24 September 2009


The man who delightedly accepted the title of neoconservatism’s “godfather” passed away on September 18 at age 89. Sad to report, the neoconservatism Irving Kristol fastened on conservative Republicans endures, and it is not good for America.

After years as an unabashed youthful Trostskyite in New York City, Kristol claimed that the excesses of the New Left in the 1960s and the crimes of communism drove him into the Republican Party. But in his 1995 book Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, he stated, “I regard myself as lucky to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory.”

Younger Americans know little of Leon Trotsky, the lesser-known partner of Vladimir Lenin who teamed with the more famous Russian thug to convert their nation into one of history’s bloodiest tyrannies. After Lenin’s death, Trotsky then partnered with the more ruthless Josef Stalin before being denounced and exiled as the result of a power struggle. Murdered in Mexico by one of Stalin’s agents, Trotsky then became a hero to international socialists who always favored the tyranny of big government and centralized power, but they wanted it chosen by people rather than forcing it down people’s throats with police state brutality.

Praised for his so-called contributions to the conservative movement and the Republican Party, Kristol was much more the personification of a Trojan Horse within America’s right wing. His own definition of the movement he launched, given in his 1995 book, claimed that neoconservatism “accepted the New Deal in principle, and had little affection for the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism.”
Accepting FDR’s socialism and rejecting America’s tradition of minding one’s own business and avoiding entangling alliances defines what it means to be a Trotskyite. Also a strong supporter of the United Nations, Kristol never ceased being Trotsky’s disciple.

Unceasingly injecting his views into many within the GOP, Kristol could claim as neoconservative step-children the likes of William Bennett, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Dick Cheney, and a host of officials in the George W. Bush administration. Given stature by his books and his own publication, The National Interest, Kristol’s influence had earlier solidly invaded the Reagan administration, courtesy of Jack Kemp.

In June 1991, Kristol used the pages of the Wall Street Journal to bare details about an invitation-only conference for “two dozen conservative leaders” sponsored by William F. Buckley’s National Review. Neoconservatism’s godfather enthusiastically reported that upon arrival the attendees “regarded themselves as conservatives first and Republicans second” but left with their priorities completely reversed. They were now Republicans first and supporters of the first President Bush’s increased taxation, expansion of federal powers, use of U.S. armed forces to enforce UN Security Council resolutions, and other elements of neoconservatism.

Buckley himself, regarded by many as the paragon of conservatism, had become a clever promoter of neoconservatism’s socialism and internationalism. The neocons had so successfully stolen the conservative label that columnist Sam Francis could write in 1993 that “the whole concept of conservatism in American is totally devoid of meaning, in large part because conservatives made the seminal error of allowing dilettantes like Mr. Buckley define it for them in the first place.” Anyone who cares to learn the hidden truths about Buckley’s many betrayals can find them in my own 2002 book, William F. Buckley, Jr.: Pied Piper for the Establishment.

Americans who formerly approved being called “conservative” have lately preferred being labeled “constitutionalist.” But not “American Values” leader Gary Bauer, considered a conservative leader by many. Obviously a neoconservative himself, Bauer paid tribute to the fallen neocon godfather by claiming, “It is impossible to imagine modern American conservatism without the powerful intellect of Irving Kristol.” He’s correct about that. But note that Bauer referred not just to conservatism but to “modern” conservatism, another term for the neoconservatism that is the legacy of Irving Kristol.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/1951-the-passing-of-irving-kristol

[Depressed Liberator]

Steele gets a plus for me on this. Plus he's been the only chairman as far as I can tell to reach out to Ron.

[georgiaboy]

+1 for Steele on this. I really wish he'd stand up to Kristol here. The guy's got a difficult if not impossible balancing act to do in terms of GOP foreign policy -- it's the biggest rift in the party.

[FrankRep]

+1 for Steele on this. I really wish he'd stand up to Kristol here. The guy's got a difficult if not impossible balancing act to do in terms of GOP foreign policy -- it's the biggest rift in the party.

I agree, test of courage for Michael Steele. Does he have what it takes to stand up for what is right?

[low preference guy]

I agree, test of courage for Michael Steele. Does he have what it takes to stand up for what is right?

Probably not, but everyone will recognize that he was speaking the truth when he though no one was filming him (a hidden camera caught the moment).

The bottom line is that people will remember that we can't "win" in Afghanistan.

[anaconda]

What's he right about?

That Michael Steele should resign?

[erowe1]

That Michael Steele should resign?

I would have said so too until I saw the OP.

I would have cheered on a Steele resignation a week ago. But now, if pressure started mounting for him to resign, and this episode became the main reason, I'd feel compelled to defend him and hope he didn't resign.

[catdd]

All the jr. neocon republicans at FOX are joining the calls to get rid of Steele because he said a ground victory cannot be achieved in Afghanistan.
I saw where one wrote "We should show videos of the towers falling everyday just for people who think about quitting."
I honestly believe most of these people are suffering from long term - post 9/11 - trauma.

[nobody's_hero]

If Steele goes now, we can be sure that whoever they replace him with will be no friend to the founders' vision of foreign policy.

[RM918]

All the jr. neocon republicans at FOX are joining the calls to get rid of Steele because he said a ground victory cannot be achieved in Afghanistan.
I saw where one wrote "We should show videos of the towers falling everyday just for people who think about quitting."
I honestly believe most of these people are suffering from long term - post 9/11 - trauma.

It's just fearmongering, they'll scream 9/11 until it doesn't work anymore which is what I wish would happen. Just appealing to the emotions when reason says the exact opposite.

[angelatc]

Link to where to post? I'm not very familiar with facebook but have a relatively unused account that I would like to leave a message with.

YOu have to be a fan to post: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Michael-Steele/121513990069#!/pages/Michael-Steele/121513990069?v=wall

The neocons are winning right now, but 2 years ago I would have been there alone. Now I'm not.

[angelatc]

Does he have an official FB?
I found like 4 different ones with thousands of fans so IDK which one to comment on.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Michael-Steele/121513990069

[anaconda]

I would have said so too until I saw the OP.

I would have cheered on a Steele resignation a week ago. But now, if pressure started mounting for him to resign, and this episode became the main reason, I'd feel compelled to defend him and hope he didn't resign.

I didn't read carefully. Sorry. I should not have commented so hastily. I will look into the issue. I just remember Steele commenting on RP after one of the debates "It' over" referring to RP's candidacy because he raised the blowback issue and the undeclared wars issue.

[michaelwise]

Michael Steele to Bill Kristol: Resign as Zionist war mongering shill for the weapons manufactures.

[catdd]

Michael Steele to Bill Kristol: Resign as Zionist war mongering shill for the weapons manufactures.

yeah, Michael, put the heartless sob out of work.

[mrchubbs]

Thinks you folks may like my article on this I published last night.

Check out the Jason Lewis audio in the article. I was cheering Lewis on while driving in my car yesterday when he devoted nearly 2 hours of his 3 hour show defending Michael Steele and asking the question: What is a conservative foreign policy? He even said the neo-cons hijacked the GOP.

http://libertymaven.com/2010/07/03/ron-paul-and-michael-steele-a-foreign-policy-fissure-in-the-gop/10155/


Enjoy!

[devil21]

Stay vigilant. I put Steele in the same catagory as Beck. Prove it when it matters.

But Steele has been making his way toward RP slowly but surely. I think some at the top are starting to realize that we are the future of the party. We've been ahead of the curve on nearly everything. No reason we won't be right about Afghanistan (and Iraq), especially to those that want to stay in power. The tide is shifting....

YouTube - Ron Paul CPAC 2010 and his new fan Michael Steele (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwl-XfTd3CI)

[osan]

It's because Steele said "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?"

The whole thing (http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/letter-michael-steele):


If Kristol were to have a most unfortunately fate accident, I don't think I'd shed so much as a tear. I might, however, throw a party.

What an insane, war-mongering asshole. I'd pay for 5 minutes in a locked room with him, no holds barred.

[osan]

Not 100 Percent of the Republican Party anymore, Kristol.

And Democrats are jumping all over him for being 'unpatriotic'. Wow. Anyone who doesn't see how there's no difference between the parties has their head stuck in the sand.

For pity's sake, will you learn to spell "asshole"?

Sheesh. ;)

[specsaregood]

Thinks you folks may like my article on this I published last night.

Check out the Jason Lewis audio in the article. I was cheering Lewis on while driving in my car yesterday when he devoted nearly 2 hours of his 3 hour show defending Michael Steele and asking the question: What is a conservative foreign policy? He even said the neo-cons hijacked the GOP.

http://libertymaven.com/2010/07/03/ron-paul-and-michael-steele-a-foreign-policy-fissure-in-the-gop/10155/


Enjoy!

Excellent article chubbs.

[angelatc]

Stay vigilant. I put Steele in the same catagory as Beck. Prove it when it matters.



Well, according to Pavlov, you need to reinforce good behavior if you want to create a pattern of good behavior.

[Flash]

McCain questions Steele’s future as GOP head

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) cast doubt Sunday on the future of the head of the Republican Party following controversial comments about the war in Afghanistan.

At a Thursday fundraiser, RNC Chairman Michael Steele was caught on video saying that the Afghanistan war was a "war of Obama's choosing" and probably a "lost cause" because no foreign power had won a war on Afghan soil "in over 1,000 years."

ABC's Jake Tapper spoke to McCain Sunday about Steele's remarks. "Republicans such as Congressman Tom Cole, William Kristol, Liz Cheney, have said that Michael Steele needs to resign because of those comments. Do you think a chairman of the Republican National Committee can be effective if he thinks that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable, as Steele seems to think?" asked Tapper.

"I think those statements are wildly inaccurate, and there's no excuse for them," said McCain.

"The fact is I believe Mr. Steele is going to have to assess if he can still lead the Republican Party as chairman of the Republican National Committee and make an appropriate decision," he said.

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0704/mccain-questions-steeles-future-gop-head/

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul congratulates Steele for his leadership against the Afghanistan war:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/107139-ron-paul-backs-steele-congratulates-rnc-chairman

Comments are easy on the Hill....

" Former GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul is lining up behind embattled Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, praising the chairman for his controversial recent remarks about the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

Paul, a Texas congressman and father of Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul, issued a statement to CNN that applauded Steele for suggesting the war was unwinnable and "of Obama's choosing." Some Republicans have called for Steele's resignation over the comments, but Paul said Steele showed "leadership."

"He is absolutely right: Afghanistan is now Obama's war," Paul said. "Michael Steele should not resign. Smart policies make smart politics. He is guiding the party in the right direction and we are on the verge of victory this fall. Chairman Steele should not back off. He is giving the country, especially young people, hope as he speaks truth about this war."

Paul's full statement to CNN:

Ron Paul Congratulates Michael Steele

Congressman Ron Paul today issued the following statement on Michael Steele’s recent comments that Afghanistan is a war of President Obama’s choosing:

“I would like to congratulate Michael Steele for his leadership on one of the most important issues of today. He is absolutely right: Afghanistan is now Obama’s war. During the 2008 campaign, Obama was out in front in insisting that more troops be sent to Afghanistan. Obama called for expanding the war even as he pretended to be a peace candidate.

“Michael Steele should not resign. Smart policies make smart politics. He is guiding the party in the right direction and we are on the verge of victory this fall. Chairman Steele should not back off. He is giving the country, especially young people, hope as he speaks truth about this war.

“I have to ask myself, what is the agenda of the harsh critics demanding this resignation? Why do they support Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama’s war?

“The American people are sick and tired spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year, draining our economy and straining our military. Michael Steele has it right and Republicans should stick by him.”

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - Ron Paul on CNN 07/04/10: RNC Chair Michael Steele War Comments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px0iuJJD7zs&feature=player_embedded)

[Matt Collins]

I heard a rumor that Rush Limbaugh is backing Steele on this one. Can anyone confirm?

[AuH2O]

Bill Kristol should resign from life.

[YumYum]

:"On National Review’s blog the Corner, Kevin D. Williamson calls for Steele to be replaced by Sarah Palin, saying she could “raise tons of money and help recruit good candidates.” "

Why don't they just replace Steele with a robot that wears lipstick?

Read more:

http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2010/07/steeles-welcome-worn-out/#ixzz0svl1PtHJ