Why the Neocons Hate Michael Steele by Pat Buchanan

[bobbyw24]

"This was a war of Obama's choosing. This is not something the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."

Strictly speaking, Republican Party Chair Michael Steele was way off base when he made this remark at a closed-door meeting of party contributors in Connecticut.

For the war began in 2001 under George W. Bush and was backed by almost all Americans, who collectively cheered the downfall of the Taliban and the rout of al-Qaida from its sanctuary in Afghanistan.

Yet, Steele was not entirely wrong.

Today, a majority of Americans do not believe the nine-year war in Afghanistan is any longer worth the rising cost in blood and money. And by declaring it a "war of necessity" and tripling U.S. forces there, this president has made it "Obama's war" every bit as much as LBJ in 1964 and 1965 made Vietnam "Johnson's War."

While Steele has spent every waking hour since his words hit the airwaves explaining, and declaring his commitment to victory, of far more interest is the alacrity with which neoconservatives piled on the chairman, demanding his resignation, while senators castigated him for remarks unacceptable for a Republican Party leader.

William Kristol's demand for Steele's resignation was echoed by Charles Krauthammer and Liz Cheney, daughter of the vice president. From Afghanistan, Steele was attacked by Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain, who suggested he think again about his capacity to lead the Republican National Committee.

Behind the swiftness and severity of the attacks on one of their own by Republican pundits and politicians are motives more serious and sinister than exasperation at another gaffe by Michael Steele.

The War Party is conducting this pre-emptive strike on Steele to send a message to dissenters. In Krauthammer's phrase, it is now a "capital offense" for a Republican leader not to support the Obama troop surge and the Obama-Petraeus policy.

Yet, a majority of Americans oppose the Afghan war. And the point made by Steele about the futility of fighting in Afghanistan has been made by columnists George Will and Tony Blankley, ex-Rep. Joe Scarborough, Ron Paul, and antiwar conservatives and moderates.

When exactly did supporting Obama's war policy become a litmus test for loyal Republicans?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan142.html

[LibertarianfromGermany]

It's obvious that Republicans are just not ready to accept a black man in a high position in their party. This is not about Afghanistan, Obama, the Republicans or the Democrats, it's about hating a black man as Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

[bobbyw24]

It's obvious that Republicans are just not ready to accept a black man in a high position in their party. This is not about Afghanistan, Obama, the Republicans or the Democrats, it's about hating a black man as Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Ich hoffe das ist nicht korrekt

[Es tut mir leid, aber ich spreche wenig Deutsche and nicht sehr gut.]

[cindy25]

race had nothing to do with it, except that it may cause some to hold back attacking Steele.

they want war, war, and war. and hate anyone that doesn't

[dean.engelhardt]

It's obvious that Republicans are just not ready to accept a black man in a high position in their party. This is not about Afghanistan, Obama, the Republicans or the Democrats, it's about hating a black man as Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

I don't support racism or discrimination but introducing it here is pure misdirection.

[GunnyFreedom]

It's obvious that Republicans are just not ready to accept a black man in a high position in their party. This is not about Afghanistan, Obama, the Republicans or the Democrats, it's about hating a black man as Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

??? :confused:

It seems obvious to me that they wouldn't care if he was a green Martian or a blue Venusian so long as he continues to cheer lead the wholesale killing and dying. :mad:

[jmdrake]

??? :confused:

It seems obvious to me that they wouldn't care if he was a green Martian or a blue Venusian so long as he continues to cheer lead the wholesale killing and dying. :mad:

^This. Republicans were ready to make Colin Powell president until he apologized for helping to lie America into the Iraq war. And the neocons didn't call for Steele's resignation after "strippergate".

[jmdrake]

Now whenever Ron Paul is asked "Why are you the only republican supporting Steele's comments on Afghanistan", he should point to this article and ask "Why are you ignoring other Republicans like Pat Buchanan". I haven't listened to Michael Savage since this story broke (really need to) but I suspect he backs Steele's comments because he's been saying the same thing for about a year now.

[Hallamaat]

It's obvious that Republicans are just not ready to accept a black man in a high position in their party. This is not about Afghanistan, Obama, the Republicans or the Democrats, it's about hating a black man as Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

I really hope that you're just spoofing Janeane Garofalo here...

[LibertarianfromGermany]

??? :confused:

It seems obvious to me that they wouldn't care if he was a green Martian or a blue Venusian so long as he continues to cheer lead the wholesale killing and dying. :mad:

We both know that it is just an excuse for Republicans so they can get rid of an African American in a position of leadership in their party!

On a more serious note though: It is a little odd that the liberal media would not take this instance and turn it into a racism story. It's certainly no less ridiculous than that everyone opposing Obama is a racist. I think that the merger of left and right will occur during the next two decades or so. They already make it very clear that they think the same on foreign policy (not that they didn't secretly agree on foreign policy before already, but they don't seem to be hiding it anymore) and the rest will follow. If they are not careful however, this could be a golden opportunity for us, i.e. libertarianism, to gain ground.

[catdd]

It's obvious that Republicans are just not ready to accept a black man in a high position in their party. This is not about Afghanistan, Obama, the Republicans or the Democrats, it's about hating a black man as Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Neocons are scum, but this is mostly over foreign policy.

[dean.engelhardt]

We both know that it is just an excuse for Republicans so they can get rid of an African American in a position of leadership in their party!

On a more serious note though: It is a little odd that the liberal media would not take this instance and turn it into a racism story. It's certainly no less ridiculous than that everyone opposing Obama is a racist. I think that the merger of left and right will occur during the next two decades or so. They already make it very clear that they think the same on foreign policy (not that they didn't secretly agree on foreign policy before already, but they don't seem to be hiding it anymore) and the rest will follow. If they are not careful however, this could be a golden opportunity for us, i.e. libertarianism, to gain ground.

If libertarians turn this in a race issue, it would only make them lose credibility. Bankrupting this country by an illegal, unwinnable war is an issue that can stand on it own. Fabricating accusation of racism will only reduces the numbers that will support ending the war.

If neo-con make an overt racist statment against Steele, we should put daylight on it. Other than that, it just dilludes the message of bring the troops home.

When it comes down to it, even racist should want to end the war.

[speciallyblend]

the gop is laughable almost to the point of comic relief!!

[jmdrake]

If libertarians turn this in a race issue, it would only make them lose credibility. Bankrupting this country by an illegal, unwinnable war is an issue that can stand on it own. Fabricating accusation of racism will only reduces the numbers that will support ending the war.

If neo-con make an overt racist statment against Steele, we should put daylight on it. Other than that, it just dilludes the message of bring the troops home.

When it comes down to it, even racist should want to end the war.

Ummm he said "liberal media" rather than "libertarians". I missed the joke at first, but I think he's saying the liberal media is showing its hypocrisy by not making this an issue of race when they seem to try all sorts of other issues that have nothing to do with race about race. (I will freely admit I could be wrong, but that's how I read it.)

[Cowlesy]

It's obvious that Republicans are just not ready to accept a black man in a high position in their party. This is not about Afghanistan, Obama, the Republicans or the Democrats, it's about hating a black man as Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

I think that is way off base. This was about neoconservatives, who will do anything possible to put diverse faces to the front of their movement if those people are willing to support their policies. For instance, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ramesh Ponnuru or Walid Shoebat.

The crux of the argument is the support of interventionist policy. Neoconservatives launching an attack on Steele is based on the fact Steele is not interventionist enough for them, and they'd love to replace him with one of their own.

[specsaregood]

The crux of the argument is the support of interventionist policy. Neoconservatives launching an attack on Steele is based on the fact Steele is not interventionist enough for them, and they'd love to replace him with one of their own.

And it shows a divide. Steele is a politician, he just wants to support the side that will win more public support and get into power. The neocons are idealistic like us (on opposite sides). Steele's comment signifies that politicians are coming around that our side is now more popular. Watch for the shift to republicans becoming the anti-war party, it is coming.

[jmdrake]

And it shows a divide. Steele is a politician, he just wants to support the side that will win more public support and get into power. The neocons are idealistic like us (on opposite sides). Steele's comment signifies that politicians are coming around that our side is now more popular. Watch for the shift to republicans becoming the anti-war party, it is coming.

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but Michael Savage predicted this at least 6 months ago (maybe more).

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

YouTube - Michael Savage supporting Michael Steele on Afghanistan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVcBnkbHJW4)

[specsaregood]

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but Michael Savage predicted this at least 6 months ago (maybe more).

So did I, maybe even longer ago. It just makes sense.

[Cowlesy]

And it shows a divide. Steele is a politician, he just wants to support the side that will win more public support and get into power. The neocons are idealistic like us (on opposite sides). Steele's comment signifies that politicians are coming around that our side is now more popular. Watch for the shift to republicans becoming the anti-war party, it is coming.

I'm afraid they might move in that direction.......until they're back in power.

[dean.engelhardt]

Ummm he said "liberal media" rather than "libertarians". I missed the joke at first, but I think he's saying the liberal media is showing its hypocrisy by not making this an issue of race when they seem to try all sorts of other issues that have nothing to do with race about race. (I will freely admit I could be wrong, but that's how I read it.)

I was refering to the last sentence:


...If they are not careful however, this could be a golden opportunity for us, i.e. libertarianism, to gain ground.

But you have a good point.

[TruckinMike]

I don't support racism or discrimination but introducing it here is pure misdirection.

Couldn't agree more...

Hannity et al have been pounding war war war... the past 9 years -- non-thinking conservatives are simply filled with the notion that we must "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here". -- What we are seeing are the effects of a thorough brainwashing of the masses.

Its not unlike the damaging works of Alfred Rosenberg and Julius Streicher (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/07/theorist-is-worse.html).

TMike

[jmdrake]

I'm afraid they might move in that direction.......until they're back in power.

That doesn't matter. I don't put any faith in the republican party. If the republican party shifts anti-war enough so that good politicians like Ron Paul have a fair shake and that liberty candidates are finally able to run as liberty candidates instead of "liberty candidates in neocon clothing" then we'll have won a major victory! It will be up to us to separate out the wheat from the chaff. All we need is a fair shake.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

Ummm he said "liberal media" rather than "libertarians". I missed the joke at first, but I think he's saying the liberal media is showing its hypocrisy by not making this an issue of race when they seem to try all sorts of other issues that have nothing to do with race about race. (I will freely admit I could be wrong, but that's how I read it.)

That is exactly what I meant. Obviously it wouldn't do us any good to give the race argument any credibility by engaging in it to defend Steele and I would never suggest such a thing. However, one would think that the liberal media would jump at the opportunity to scream "race war" at the republican party. The fact that they do not, i.e. treating this case differently, indicates that they at least semi-openly fight the antiwar sentiment on the right also where you would typically think they have no influence anyway. To me this merger of the right and the left on foreign policy seems like it could go much further than just foreign policy and I think if we don't screw it up, libertarianism will at some point seem to most regime-critics as the only real alternative to the status quo (as it really is) as opposed to now where in the left-and-right system government-critics just simply are for the party that is currently not in power.

[TNforPaul45]

It's obvious that Republicans are just not ready to accept an honest man in a high position in their party. This is not about Afghanistan, Obama, the Republicans or the Democrats, it's about hating an honest man as Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

[Working Poor]

Ummm he said "liberal media" rather than "libertarians". I missed the joke at first, but I think he's saying the liberal media is showing its hypocrisy by not making this an issue of race when they seem to try all sorts of other issues that have nothing to do with race about race. (I will freely admit I could be wrong, but that's how I read it.)

Hmmmm it makes me want to start the racist rumor myself to help tear the republthugs down some more and show how slack the liberal media is and that racism is just a front...

I feel the people waking up some more:D

[dean.engelhardt]

That is exactly what I meant. Obviously it wouldn't do us any good to give the race argument any credibility by engaging in it to defend Steele and I would never suggest such a thing. However, one would think that the liberal media would jump at the opportunity to scream "race war" at the republican party. The fact that they do not, i.e. treating this case differently, indicates that they at least semi-openly fight the antiwar sentiment on the right also where you would typically think they have no influence anyway. To me this merger of the right and the left on foreign policy seems like it could go much further than just foreign policy and I think if we don't screw it up, libertarianism will at some point seem to most regime-critics as the only real alternative to the status quo (as it really is) as opposed to now where in the left-and-right system government-critics just simply are for the party that is currently not in power.

I clearly misinterpeted your posts. Please accept my apology.

[catdd]

YouTube - south park race war (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOmFLF51qRg)

[YumYum]

The division among the Republicans raises some questions. The Jews who are Israeli firsters (like Michael Savage) are turning against the Afghanistan war, or they don't say much (like Bill Kristol has been of lately). The Jews that are Israeli firsters want the U.S. to bomb and invade Iran. And while all of the neocons want to go to war with Iran, its only the neo-cons that are evangelicals, and also the Dick Chaney crowd who are for the Afghan war. Why? Why are they divided?

Could have Obama put troops in Afghanistan to tie us up so bad that it would be impossible for us to invade Iran, since we don't have enough troops? Has he beat the Jews (who want war with Iran) at their own game?

[silus]

It's obvious that Republicans are just not ready to accept a black man in a high position in their party. This is not about Afghanistan, Obama, the Republicans or the Democrats, it's about hating a black man as Chairman of the Republican National Committee.


race had nothing to do with it, except that it may cause some to hold back attacking Steele.

they want war, war, and war. and hate anyone that doesn't


I don't support racism or discrimination but introducing it here is pure misdirection.


??? :confused:

It seems obvious to me that they wouldn't care if he was a green Martian or a blue Venusian so long as he continues to cheer lead the wholesale killing and dying. :mad:


I really hope that you're just spoofing Janeane Garofalo here...
Of course race has a lot to do with this. How can anyone think otherwise?? Damn near everyone thinks, to some degree, race played a factor in him even earning the position as party chairman. So everything he does is tied to the somewhat illegitimate reasons he is there.