
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele may be misremembering exactly how and when the Afghanistan war began.
At a Republican Party fundraiser in Connecticut on Thursday, Steele declared that the war in Afghanistan "was a war of Obama's choosing" that America had not "actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in," in a response to an attendee's question about the resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal -- which Steele called "very comical."
[TPM SLIDESHOW: Best Boss Ever? Michael Steele & The RNC Interns]
"The McChrystal incident, to me, was very comical. And I think it's a reflection of the frustration that a lot of our military leaders have with this Administration and their prosecution of the war in Afghanistan," said Steele. "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."
"It was one of those, one of those areas of the total board of foreign policy ["in the Middle East"? -- Note: The audio is not quite clear in this section.] that we would be in the background, sort of shaping the changes that were necessary in Afghanistan as opposed to directly engaging troops," Steele continued. "But it was the president who was trying to be cute by half by flipping a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan. Well, if he's 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? All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan."
Late Update: We asked RNC spokesman Doug Heye for comment -- and it's not quite clear what his answer is to the main questions raised by Steele's remarks.
And don't miss this slideshow!
DCCyclone
July 2, 2010 9:45 AM
Methinks every Republican in the country save the Paulites are saying "WHAT THE FUCK?!" Their own party's national chairman is explicitly opposing a war whose overwhelming base of support is his party, and moreover he claims Obama STARTED it.
Michael Steele really truly is a very stupid man. As in, far more stupid than the average voter. And the Rethugs were sooooooo desperate to get a black face up front and center that they made HIM their national committee leader!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
storm
July 2, 2010 9:51 AM in reply to DCCyclone
This is a poll I'd like to see. And I wonder how many times it needs to be repeated before 'WTF' would not be the plurality answer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
storm
July 2, 2010 9:53 AM in reply to storm
Paulites maybe, but I don't think Paul himself has ever been very high on war making in Afghanistan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ann
July 2, 2010 3:01 PM in reply to storm
Should war be a prerequisite for GOP membership? Vote
http://www.youpolls.com/
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
phoolish1
July 3, 2010 4:34 AM in reply to Ann
serving in one or being deferred from it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcrose68
July 2, 2010 9:57 AM in reply to DCCyclone
Methinks Steele and most of his comrades cannot see their own reflections in the mirror.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John M
July 2, 2010 10:11 AM in reply to mcrose68
Steele persists in Repubublican revisionist history which states that the presidency of George W. Bush and his failed economic policies and war mongering never existed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
July 2, 2010 11:24 AM in reply to John M
They've morphed the administration bungles of Bush the Lesser into the first fifteen months of the Obama Administration.
Bush did all the "good" stuff (like cutting taxes on the rich), but all the "bad" stuff (like the wars and the failed economy) were done by Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mJJ
July 4, 2010 7:28 PM in reply to mcrose68
Actually what is so amazing about Steele is that he was so closed-mouthed while GW was President. You know the guy who just inadvertantly invaded the wrong country. Alas, Afghanistan sent the perps to bomb heck out of New York, and low and behold, what does GW do, he invades Iraq. If the guy really worked at messing up, he could not damage our party more than by his inane conduct of these wars. Amazing that our party elected the dork for two terms and left us with two unfinished wars and a heap of debt. What a guy! With Republicans like him, expect us to be out fo power for decades to come.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 2, 2010 10:23 AM in reply to DCCyclone
I agree with your opinion of Steele, but I don't agree that other Republicans in the country are saying "WTF?". It's more likely that they're all cheering him on. They've gotten so used to automatically criticizing everything Obama does that they bash him even when he's continuing the policies of one of their heroes.
Actually, I agree with Steele that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, and I'm not thrilled with Obama's continuation of it. But at least I remember who started it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
July 2, 2010 10:32 AM in reply to DCCyclone
You said it.
This isn't your garden variety ridiculous Republican. This is a ridiculously tone deaf Republican leader.
The war in Afghanistan is the ONLY thing that National Review and Weekly Standard have praised on Obama on, albeit backhandedly.
True, the Republicans want to get the message Steele articulated out -- but not to their base. They want progressives to be disenchanted and stay home.
But the person to get that message out is not the Muppet-In-Charge. It's just going to befuddle their own base. He's criticizing the only thing conservatives like about Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ManOutOfTime
July 2, 2010 10:36 AM in reply to DCCyclone
It's GENIUS, I tells ya! Straight out of Rove's playbook.
Four months before the midterms, the GOP has officially covered the problem space of anti-Obama rhetoric: for fighting hard in Afghanistan and against, for the recovery and against, for immigration reform and against, for financial reform and against, for job creation and against, for dealing with BP and against. The list goes on.
What kind of a message is this guy sending to the troops? Dubya asked that anytime he heard a criticism of his wars. Thanks, Mr. Steele. Thanks for telling the men and women risking life and limb in that hellhole that they are engaged in folly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 2, 2010 11:45 AM in reply to DCCyclone
Indeed.
"the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed. "
This sounds like the exact OPPOSITE of what the Republican neocons were saying when we went in as well as now. From my understanding, they insist on staying, saying "we need to win". I'd love to see the "liberulll" media ask all GOP congressmen/women what they think about that sentiment and whether they agree with Steele's statement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
July 2, 2010 9:49 AM
Put this in another attack ad "Republicans just make stuff up..."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BostonKen
July 2, 2010 9:52 AM
What color is the sky on the planet where Michael Steele lives?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CherStoleMyFace
July 2, 2010 9:56 AM
Wow! What a dumb, dumb, dumb guy.. unless of course instead of Cheney's puppet, Bush was Obama's puppet all along, yeah, I think that must be what Mr. Steele the dumb is saying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TJ21
July 2, 2010 9:57 AM
Sooner or later conservatives are going to get tired of having the most intellectually deficient collection of party leaders in... the world? The english speaking world for sure right?
I mean, this is just dumb. Its embarrassing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
July 2, 2010 11:35 AM in reply to TJ21
Correct. The British Conservative party, by contrast, seems like a reasonable and thoughtful opposition to the left-leaning parties in that country. Little or no wingnuttery (or it's dismissed out-of-hand by party leadership) and actual alternatives to their opponents plans. I'm a left-leaning progressive myself, but I can actually see how some people might vote Conservative in Britain. Not seeing how ANY sensible person could vote Republican now in the US!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
July 2, 2010 10:00 AM
I believe it is officially the time to start tagging the GOP of being Anti-American and disrespectful of our young men and women by putting them in greater grave danger. Why does the GOP want to wave the white flag of surrender in giving the victory to the supporters of the terrorists who attacked us from Afghanistan.
If only a democrat could be as shameless and intellectually dishonest in their hyperbole as republicans are so comfortable with.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
martis
July 5, 2010 1:40 AM in reply to tinsk
don't worry, the DNC granted your wish! pathetic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joshua the Teacher
July 2, 2010 10:06 AM
I'll have to respond later- I'm having trouble typing seeing as though my jaw has hit the bottom of the floor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richard L. Adlof
July 2, 2010 10:07 AM
U.S. didn't want it . . . The Bush Administration lied us into it . . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
July 2, 2010 10:27 AM in reply to Richard L. Adlof
It's time to stop blaming Bush for everything. Not that most of the problems we are facing today aren't a direct result of his policies. It's time to lump the blame on the facilitators, the entire GOP.
Afghanistan is America's war that needs to be wound down. Iraq is without question Bush's war that Obama has been winding down. The economy meltdown is the Republican failed economic policies. Immigration is the republican failed immigration policies. The deficit is the republican failed spending policies. No policy that the republicans put in place has succeeded and like the wars, take time to wind down and set back on the correct course. Blame republicans because their ideas have been born out in retrospect as proven failures.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KufPu
July 2, 2010 10:37 AM in reply to tinsk
This is a good point, as Republicans appear to have been distancing themselves from Bush for a while now. So pinning a lot of this on Bush, while appropriate, isn't going to get a lot of traction. Make the whole Republican party own it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
July 2, 2010 11:27 AM in reply to KufPu
I think that's just what tinsk was saying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
July 2, 2010 11:28 AM in reply to Cal Gal
Sorry. I see you were agreeing with tinsk. my bad
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KufPu
July 2, 2010 12:16 PM in reply to Cal Gal
S'okay.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
July 2, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to tinsk
I would take it one step further, you voted for Bush or Boehner or Kyl or any one a these idiots, IT'S YOUR FAULT!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 2, 2010 10:07 AM
STEELE: "The McChrystal incident, to me, was very comical."
It was omical???
What is wrong with this guy?
Where are the grownups in the party?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LarsThorwald
July 2, 2010 10:08 AM
I'm from Maryland. Steele is not representative of the intelligence of my fellow Marylanders. Please do not hold his complete fucking idiocy against us. That is all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 2, 2010 4:10 PM in reply to LarsThorwald
Don't worry Lars. Texas and SC have the market cornered on "teh stoopid™" so that should be the least of your worries.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnnydoughey
July 2, 2010 10:08 AM
"The McChrystal incident, to me, was very comical."
Yes, I can understand your amusement. Perhaps you could go visit the families of the dead soldiers and let them know just how hilarious all of this is.
BTW:
Fact is, BOTH this AND the previous president have entangled us in both wars, and the drive behind it is the same as the past few wars.
Our defense budget this year is about $650 billion. The war profiteers are making an absolute fortune, and many of those folk are past military experts and bigwigs who have access to the highest levels of our government... much more than the commoners who actually do the dying.
About 100 million homes and apartments in this nation, folks.
About $30 thousand on average to solar power these homes.
Take $200 billion per year from the defense budget (that would still leave this nation spending half of the entire world's defense budget) and put it into solar power.
All dwellings in this country could be solar powered (and have a hydrogen powered vehicle sitting in the garage) in 15 years.
Of course this is all a dream, since those in power have a desire to remain in power and would never agree to allowing this nation's hard working population to become free of the daily payoffs to those in charge of our politicians... IMHO
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joshua the Teacher
July 2, 2010 10:10 AM
Again, we have a Republican who seems to know the answers, but is not saying what to do. This is like McCain's "I know how to win wars" line during the election. He never really said how he would be awesome and win those wars. Genuis.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill57
July 2, 2010 10:28 AM in reply to Joshua the Teacher
The same awesome way he flew his planes. How many did he crash? 3?4?5? I don't remember. Yes McSenile is a war expert because he crashed and got caught by the enemy. Just the guy I want to run our war.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nutter
July 2, 2010 11:01 AM in reply to bill57
Crash 3 for flying too low
Lost one when his aircraft carrier pretty much blew up (not his fault)
Lost one when shot down for flying too low
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
July 2, 2010 12:41 PM in reply to Nutter
Well he says it's not his fault, but with his track record who knows?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 2, 2010 10:54 AM in reply to Joshua the Teacher
McCain also claimed to know where bin Laden is. I guess he's withholding that info until he's elected president. Country First!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
drv
July 2, 2010 10:11 AM
Somewhere a village is missing its idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
July 2, 2010 10:33 AM in reply to drv
That idiot may have gone missing, but no village in its right mind would actually "miss" his wandering off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
July 2, 2010 11:29 AM in reply to tinsk
LOL
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
July 2, 2010 3:40 PM in reply to drv
He's mayor of a village of idiots.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sk
July 2, 2010 10:12 AM
What a vast vacant wasteland is to be found in this guy's cranium.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nutter
July 2, 2010 10:14 AM
I see....and when Clinton/Obama was filling their collective anus with predator drones and cruise missiles, republicans rally around them......right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 2, 2010 10:16 AM
"has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan?"
Inconceivable!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 2, 2010 10:25 AM
That man's crazy and stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eztempo
July 2, 2010 10:32 AM
I wonder if John McCain, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell -- hell any of the real leaders of the Republican party: Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and "The Dicks" (Cheney and Armey) -- would agree that President George W. Bush did NOT "actively prosecute" or even want the war in Afghanistan.
D'ya think we can get the DC press corps to ask them?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ADad
July 2, 2010 10:39 AM
Steele is a 20 megaton warhead of stupid. He may be the Democrats last best hope of holding on to both houses of Congress in 2010.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Ragin
July 2, 2010 10:43 AM
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 2, 2010 9:31 PM in reply to Barry Ragin
Win.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Madtek
July 2, 2010 10:45 AM
Baby Trig (remember him?)will grow up to be this party's most intelligent leader!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mattinjersey
July 2, 2010 10:53 AM
My favorite part is when he sends out a statment clarifying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kp
July 2, 2010 10:55 AM
He's so desperate for street cred. "Flip the script"? Sooo 2003. I think this guy is actually whiter than me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
July 2, 2010 10:57 AM
This reminds me of The Princess Bride:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/quotes
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Eugenian
July 2, 2010 5:55 PM in reply to AlphaLiberal
They knew after Vietnam that never again could you draft people to fight crazy wars in Asia. MacArthur’s final advice, by the way, to Lyndon Johnson was, never fight a land war in Asia. Johnson knew everything, but he did it anyway.
- Gore Vidal
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3977/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joejoeg
July 2, 2010 10:58 AM
I can`t believe how stupid Steele and the Repubs are...how anyone could vote for these guys ahead with their failed policies, their lies..i feel better Obama will get re elected.
Thank you GOP!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
July 2, 2010 11:01 AM
"The McChrystal incident, to me, was very comical."
I, for one, laughed my ass off about it.
NB: Not just "comical," which is an unbelievable characterization in and of itself, but "very" comical.
I'll tell you what's very comical ... Michael Steele's ability to put together a coherent sentence.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nimbleswitch
July 2, 2010 11:10 AM
Having previously established that a truly stupid man can become President of the United States, the GOP has now proven that a truly stupid man can be Chairman of the Republican National Committee. They should run Steele for president. He's certainly qualified.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
July 2, 2010 11:12 AM
From Josh's blurb back on the main page:
Given that it was Michael Steele who was making pronouncements on the history of the war, I think that they can be discounted as the rantings of an idiot who hit upon a partial truth, i.e. that we shouldn't be in Afghanistan at all and that it's an unwinnable war. The "Obama's war of choice" bit is just plain crap.
What I'm a bit surprised at is Josh's assertion that Dems who feel this are on the left of the Party, while Republican's are "Realists". Where does that leave the Dems who are in favor or continuing? Sounds like they're the Fantasist right wing of the Democratic Party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ken Berwitz
July 2, 2010 11:17 AM
President Bush understood that Afghanistan is a few "cities" (a charitable description if ever there was one) and mostly desolate, ungovernable no-man's lands. For that reason his objectives after 9/11 were limited to removing the taliban from power, closing the al qaeda training camps and capturing or killing as many al qaeda as he could (which, bin laden and zawahiri aside, we largely did). Mr. Bush was able to quickly accomplish this with a relatively small contingent of US forces and a low casualty rate. And that is the way things stayed right through to the end of his second term.
By contrast, President Obama is committed to "winning" an unwinnable war. And, incredibly, he is trying to gain Afghani support while telling them that US troops will be pulling out next year.
A little common sense goes a long way here. Suppose you are an Afghani citizen: you can cast your lot with the USA's position, knowing that your protectors will be gone next year, or with the taliban, who will still be there and who "know where you live". Even if you despise the taliban from the bottom of your heart, what possible logic would put you on our side?
So my congratulations to former President Bush for seeing what was necessary in Afghanistan and successfully doing what had to be done. Who else ever had any success there?
And my congratulations to current President Obama for disengaging us from the successful Bush policy and going back to the USSR-inspired model which failed so completely. If you wanted our prospects to change, sir, then those congratulations are certainly in order. Because change they did.
"Mission Accomplished".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
July 2, 2010 11:24 AM in reply to Ken Berwitz
Yeah, that Bush policy was going *great*, minus the bits about the Taliban TAKING OVER sizable parts of the country. But judged according to the rest of his efforts, it was pretty solid!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ken Berwitz
July 2, 2010 11:51 AM in reply to Matt Jones
That's right. The taliban was able to take over (maintain control over is more accurate)a lot of the country. Ironically, you are pretty much making the same point I am. Other than Kabul, Kandahar and a few other "cities" there is no way to wrest control from the taliban.
Bush did what could be done, and didn't try to do what couldn't be done.
Obama, by contrast, is pumping more and more troops in to do what Bush knew better than to try.
If you like an unwinnable war, fought in a way that guarantees defeat, in a place where the enemy will always have the upper hand, Obama's Afghanistan strategy will be be heaven on earth to you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 2, 2010 12:05 PM in reply to Ken Berwitz
"Bush did what could be done, and didn't try to do what couldn't be done."
Then Bush should have withdrawn the troops after he saw what he did was not working. Instead, the problem grew and spread, which necessitated another plan.
It was nice to see at least some mention that Bush started this war as opposed to what Steele is now claiming.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ken Berwitz
July 2, 2010 12:20 PM in reply to It's Pat
With all due respect, you are missing my point.
Bush's strategy DID work. And he never tried to expand it beyond what was working.
Obama is turning it into an uwinnable exercise in futility, at a cost in lives and dollars that far exceeds the Bush model.
Not that I'm trying to explain what Steele so convolutedly said - I wouldn't even try - but I suspect his reference was to Obama's Afghanistan strategy, not to the actual start of the war. Admittedly, this is only a guess, since I am as confused by his words as most other people here seem to be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 2, 2010 12:45 PM in reply to Ken Berwitz
If it worked, Bush would have left and bought the troops home BEFORE he left office. With all due respect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 2, 2010 2:44 PM in reply to Ken Berwitz
What a load of bunk
"From 2003 onwards, the Taliban increased its attacks using insurgency tactics. Firmly entrenched in the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan the Taliban enjoyed a resurgence, showing it could launch large, coordinated and effective attacks on coalition and Afghan forces.[95] Over the course of the years, NATO-lead troops lead several offensives against the entrenched Taliban, but proved unable to completely dislodge their presence."
That, from Wikipedia because that's all the effort you deserve, shows that far from sitting around the cities and drinking coffee like you are saying, the American lead forces were actually out in the countryside and all over the country, attacking the Taliban areas for all of Bush's watch. And that's the strategy he signed off on in order to be a "War President." Plus there was all the efforts that went into doing elections around THE WHOLE COUNTRY. Bush was signing off on those too.
You have used the media's lack of attention in Afghanistan to fill in your own blanks. Guess what, you are completely wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ken Berwitz
July 2, 2010 3:27 PM in reply to Sir T
Yes, the taliban remained entrenched in the uncontrollable no-man's lands. Yes, the taliban used insurgency techniques because they were no longer running the government or in control of the major cities.
Ironically, you are saying what I'm saying. You just don't realize it.
As far as our military hitting taliban strongholds anywhere we could find them? OF COURSE we did that. But we didn't double and triple our troop presence to try to take over those areas the way Obama & Co. are doing.
Our objectives were self-serving - i.e. to prevent another 9/11. If the near-impossible happened and Afghanistan became a democracy in the process, that was icing on the cake.
If you can stash the insults for just a moment, compare our troop strength in Afghanistan during the Bush presidency to now. Then compare our casualty rates in Afghanistan during the Bush presidency to now. Then compare the success or failure of our objectives during the Bush presidency to now (you might want to start with the Marja offensive).
The difference is dramatic - and I doubt that it will make you feel very good about what Obama is doing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 2, 2010 4:38 PM in reply to Ken Berwitz
Ahh I love the smell of bunk in the morning. Without thinking your changing your story. heres some examples
"Yes, the taliban remained entrenched in the uncontrollable no-man's lands."
Hold on before it was "President Bush understood that Afghanistan is a few "cities" (a charitable description if ever there was one) and mostly desolate, ungovernable no-man's lands."
But when I say The Taloiban were "Firmly entrenched in the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan" You suddenly try and twist that into them being in all the countryside outside the cities, which you said BEFORE was where they were. Er, no. They were in the mountains in the south east, as that's where the border is. Thats a small section of Afganistan, as anyone thats looked at a map would have told you.
"Yes, the taliban used insurgency techniques because they were no longer running the government or in control of the major cities."
Or most of the country. Which is what I said.
"As far as our military hitting taliban strongholds anywhere we could find them? OF COURSE we did that."
OH REALLY? Well before you were saying, and I quote you: "Mr. Bush was able to quickly accomplish this with a relatively small contingent of US forces and a low casualty rate. And that is the way things stayed right through to the end of his second term."
Which you were now admitting included massive ground attacks on the Taliban. Of course that was NATO, not "US forces", so you are slithering off the hook.
"But we didn't double and triple our troop presence to try to take over those areas the way Obama & Co. are doing."
You see, your vision of Bushes "small contingent of US forces" ignores the fact that Bush went around begging for NATO forces to shore up the US presence, so he could pull US forces out to get them into Iraq. You can talk about "small contingent of US forces" all you like but Afghanistan is the biggest NATO commitment of troops ever. They are there because Mr. Bush wanted them there. Since you are so fond of looking at statistics, would you like to look at the total NATO casualty rates? I'm sure you would find them surprising. Its no wonder that NATO countries are beginning to quietly pull out of Afghanistan and are not available to absorb US casualties anymore.
Of course what you are saying is true of the initial attack. Bush initially put in 10,000 troops as he was focused on Iraq even then, but that went up and up and was bolstered by NATO troops.
Oh and as for "capturing or killing as many al qaeda as he could (which, bin laden and zawahiri aside, we largely did)" One of the big criticisms of the Bush attack is that he larely let the Taliban go. They surrounded Kandahar on 3 sides, waited till the Taliban left on the side they had left open and then walked in in front of TV cameras. And then Bush called off air strikes on the convoys into Pakistan. All the better for declaring Mission accomplished there and focusing on Iraq.
And as for "which, bin laden and zawahiri aside, we largely did" Obama has captured and killed more Taliban leaders than Bush managed in 7 years, including the war.
And as for "Who else ever had any success there?" The British had a fair amount of success in Afghanistan in the 1800s. Bush didn't even follow the successes of the British model there, such as they were. Who do you think drew the present borders of Afghanistan?
I'm sorry, but installing an oil exec as president, letting the Taliban go, making deals with warlords and then filling the country with NATO troops who have been prosecuting a ground and Air war under US command ever since, does not equal peacefully sitting in the cities. And you can squeese your eyes to ignore your allies who have died there and filter them out of "US casualties" but that does not equal successful strategy. Bush did enough to look good before running off to Iraq. That's it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ken Berwitz
July 2, 2010 5:25 PM in reply to Sir T
In the interests of brevity, I'll do this as tersely as possible:
-I said Afghanistan is a few "cities" and desolate no-mans lands, and that Bush pushed them out of the cities. Then I said they remained entrenched in the no-man's lands. That is perfectly consistent. What's your problem?
-We agreed that the taliban was using insurgency techniques, because they were not in control of the government or the cities. Again, what's your problem?
-I said we hit taliban strongholds wherever we found them. We did.
-I said Bush did this with relatively few troops. That is 100% true. From 2001 to 2007 we rose from less than 10,000 troops to about 22,000. We are now at about 4 times that number on our way to 100,000.
-The presence of non-US forces kept our troop levels down under Bush? They're doing the same now. And?
-Were mistakes made at the beginning of (and, I'm sure, throughout) the war effort. Sure. That's war. Feel free to fantasize all the sinister political motives you can come up with.
-I ask who else has had success there and you say the British had "a fair amount" in the 1800's??? I love it. Great answer -- if you're auditioning for Last Comic Standing.
-Karzai may not be much, but, to the extent that there is democracy in Afghanistan, he was elected, not installed. What's the difference whether he was an oil executive beforehand?
All that effort, and you didn't even make a valid point.
Have a nice day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 7, 2010 1:02 AM in reply to Ken Berwitz
"-The presence of non-US forces kept our troop levels down under Bush? They're doing the same now. And?"
That's not what I said, nearly that you seem to have this fantasy that the US managed to keep the lid on the country with just 10000 troops. In fact that does not include Nato troops which raised the number of troops there to the level of Iraq.
"-I said Bush did this with relatively few troops. That is 100% true. From 2001 to 2007 we rose from less than 10,000 troops to about 22,000. We are now at about 4 times that number on our way to 100,000."
not to mention the massive air power and drones that operate effectively as artillery, but don't count as "troops". Its sophistry to convince the ignorant. Much like "enemy combatant" which was on no document till Cheney made it up to pretend you weren't violating the Geneva conventions.
"-I said Afghanistan is a few "cities" and desolate no-mans lands, and that Bush pushed them out of the cities. Then I said they remained entrenched in the no-man's lands. That is perfectly consistent. What's your problem? "
My problem is that's not what happened. The Taliban were allowed to retreat to the Pakistani border. They had no presence across most of the country.
"-Were mistakes made at the beginning of (and, I'm sure, throughout) the war effort. Sure. That's war. Feel free to fantasize all the sinister political motives you can come up with."
And imagining huge strategic successes where none exist is ok because?
But hey sucking away the troops to play in Iraq and dooming the country is stratigic brilliance as long as you ave an R behind your name.
"-I ask who else has had success there and you say the British had "a fair amount" in the 1800's??? I love it. Great answer -- if you're auditioning for Last Comic Standing."
Why? The British lost the first Afgan war, but regained influence in 1858, solidly won the Second Afgan war and held control till 1919.
"-Karzai may not be much, but, to the extent that there is democracy in Afghanistan, he was elected, not installed. What's the difference whether he was an oil executive beforehand?"
He was installed by Bush (I thought you liked Bush's strategy and now you're denying bits of it), 'won' an election so corrupt that all observers could say was that maybe the cheating from all sides would cancel each other out, hopefully. And look up the trans Afghanistan oil pipline.
"-I said we hit taliban strongholds wherever we found them. We did."
Except they were huge ground offensives, ignores several pitched battles with insurgent armies, Etc. The "hitting Taliban strongholds" were airstrikes.
I mean seriously do you know anything that went on in that country over the last 10 years?
"All that effort, and you didn't even make a valid point.
Have a nice day."
Odd that i was able to invalidate your refutations. Which frankly was you just repeating yourself with no additional information. Saying what the same thing 5 times doesn't make it true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 2, 2010 2:49 PM in reply to Ken Berwitz
Oh, and since i just read that even the GOP are saying that you and Steele are totally wrong and Steele should resign over saying this, maybe you should quit while you have just dug a 3 foot deep hole for yourself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ken Berwitz
July 2, 2010 3:36 PM in reply to Sir T
Evidently you are typing without reading. I criticized what Steele said too.
I get the feeling that you have your "talking points" down and don't intend to let anything get in their way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 2, 2010 4:09 PM in reply to Ken Berwitz
"Evidently you are typing without reading. I criticized what Steele said too."
Actually, and anyone with a word search can confirm this, you didn't mention Steele at all!
I love it when you lot come up with lies that are so childish and blatant. In order to act tough you wind up with egg on your face when you are called out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ken Berwitz
July 2, 2010 5:30 PM in reply to Sir T
Since you're calling me a liar, this is my last post to you.
If you bothered to scroll back up you would have seen this:
Not that I'm trying to explain what Steele so convolutedly said - I wouldn't even try - but I suspect his reference was to Obama's Afghanistan strategy, not to the actual start of the war. Admittedly, this is only a guess, since I am as confused by his words as most other people here seem to be.
I posted that a 12:20. Look back and see for yourself.
Now you're ignored.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 7, 2010 1:05 AM in reply to Ken Berwitz
Ass I missed that, but you said you CRITICIZED Steele. That was you making a weak defense of what he was saying. "Maybe he meant to say this" is defending him, not criticizing him.
TLDR you are still a liar.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
July 2, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to Ken Berwitz
You are acting like Bush was more than just a spoiled, clueless fratboy. Like a single decision made during those eight years came out of his empty head. (Well, there was one, Harriet Miers, but that was just Cheney's way of getting Bush to shut up and stick to the script.)
The fact that you are praising that vapid puppet for anything proves that your comments utterly lack merit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ken Berwitz
July 2, 2010 12:40 PM in reply to farnsworth
Since you didn't provide anything to rebut what I said, there is no way to respond.
Insults aren't facts. I suggest you try facts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
July 2, 2010 12:47 PM in reply to Ken Berwitz
What I did was demonstrate that you argument lacks merit, and therefore does not deserve refutation.
Since you have demonstrated you lack a grasp of reality, I am not surprised you didn't understand.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
July 2, 2010 12:47 PM in reply to Ken Berwitz
What I did was demonstrate that you argument lacks merit, and therefore does not deserve refutation.
Since you have demonstrated you lack a grasp of reality, I am not surprised you didn't understand.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 2, 2010 5:03 PM in reply to Ken Berwitz
"That's right. The taliban was able to take over (maintain control over is more accurate)a lot of the country. Ironically, you are pretty much making the same point I am. Other than Kabul, Kandahar and a few other "cities" there is no way to wrest control from the taliban."
Ahh such ignorance.
The whole country is Not the Taliban. In fact the country as a whole is nothing to do with the Taliban. The original Taliban were a revolt against the Mujaheddin in 1994, which by this time had descended into Warlordism. In fact the Taliban conquest was actually striking deals with various Mujaheddin warlords till they walked into Kabul in 1996. They only ruled the country for 7 years. When The US walked in the US struck deals with the same Warlords.
I'm sorry, but most of those Warlords are actually as dead set against against the return of the Taliban as anyone else (most of them used to be US backed Mujaheddin, remember), but they like them there as they keep NATO forces from burning their poppy fields. Its only the safe heavens in Pakistan that keep The Taliban, or whatever is left of it, alive.
Very simple explanation of a very complicated country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
July 2, 2010 11:34 AM in reply to Ken Berwitz
"Mr. Bush was able to quickly accomplish this with a relatively small contingent of US forces and a low casualty rate."
It is to laugh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CTMike
July 2, 2010 1:06 PM in reply to Ken Berwitz
When I read your post, I actually thought it was sarcarsm but I guess not. The goals of the Bush administration as espoused by you were reached far before the election of President Obama. Why didn't the administration declare victory and leave? I'll tell you why, it's because that administration's goals were far loftier.
In December of 2008, President Bush met with President Karzai. Bush then said, "The interest is to build a flourishing democracy as an alternative to a hateful ideology." Not quite the limited objectives you state. Indeed, if anything, I'd argue that the Obama administration has taken a far less idealistic view, at least tacitly supporting President Karzai's efforts to bring the Taliban into some sort of coalition government.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ken Berwitz
July 2, 2010 1:44 PM in reply to CTMike
Mike - I didn't mean that to be sarcastic at all.
Bush could not remove all troops and expect that the taliban wouldn't retake Afghanistan, any more than Obama can. This isn't a "we win, it's over, we go home" situation. I wish it was, but the harsh reality is that, for the immediate and near future, the taliban will re-take control of the country unless we maintain a presence there.
It is true that Bush publicly encouraged Karzai to work towards a democratic state in Afghanistan. But what else would he (or Obama or any other US President) do? What is a President supposed to say to Karzai?
Bush could have said the truth, which is that Afghanistan is a 12th century bunghole hopelessly mired in religious and ethnic hatred. But what would that have gotten us other than a demand that we leave and an enemy instead of, at least tacitly, an ally?
The point is that Bush didn't extend us beyond what we could realistically do. Obama, by contrast, is taking us where we cannot succeed, at a huge additional cost in lives and money.
And calling Bush names (not that you did, the reference is to others) doesn't change the logic of his Afghanistan strategy - or improve the illogic of what Obama is doing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CTMike
July 2, 2010 2:04 PM in reply to Ken Berwitz
You and I are just going to have to disagree that Obama's conduct is illogical. I one of those few liberals who believe that Afghanistan is worth staying in and working at for as long as necessary. I supported President Bush's plans then and I support President Obama's plans now - they may have differences but not material ones, not as I see it. Iraq has always been a different story for me, but Afghanistan is worth it for as long as Osama Bin Laden gets to share this earth with me. My position is simple - we can leave Afghanistan as soon as Bin Laden is a permanent resident of Hell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
libdevil
July 2, 2010 11:19 AM
In addition to the plain stupid, I can't believe how many different ways he found to mangle both idiomatic English and world history in two short paragraphs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aq
July 2, 2010 11:24 AM
Well if the RNC is against it, I might actually see us out of Afghanistan on time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyleleander
July 2, 2010 12:12 PM in reply to aq
Oh, So you want us to fight them on our porches then?!! Typical liberal elitist talk... never wanting to finish the job!
This is Obama's war of choice, and he's choosing to make us stay there and fight a war that we didn't want not to happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hidden Oak
July 2, 2010 11:38 AM
"Obama's war of choice". Oh, those peace loving Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
July 2, 2010 11:52 AM
Don't you guys know ANYTHING?
9-11 happened on Obama's watch. Because he's a Muslin Marxist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyleleander
July 2, 2010 12:09 PM
Where was Obama after 9/11, when he could have stopped us from going into Afghanistan? Huh? Huh?
Tell me you wouldn't be surprised if Republicans tried to use this line and their base went with it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GeneralRipper
July 2, 2010 1:57 PM in reply to lyleleander
> Where was Obama after 9/11 ... ?
Hmmm... Good question. Now that you mention it,
has anyone ever seen Obama and Osama together?
Jack
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Prysmith
July 2, 2010 12:10 PM
Steele is correct to the extent that President Obama has now embraced the war-without-end, probably on the advice of his counselors who are beholden to the military/industrial cabal in DC. But, he is giving vent to an outright lie and jaw-dropping fiction when he implies that Obama started the conflict. The invasion of Afghanistan was an hysterical response to the 9/11 attacks by the gibbering, unprepared Bush administration that simply did not know what else to do but launch an ill-planned attack against the al Qaeda training camps, got entangled with the far less-than-sympathetic locals, and never quite figured out how to pack up and get out while they were distracted by their other war of choice in Iraq. The whole thing is a horror show. The sad thing is that the President has now claimed it for his own with the escalation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rccsb
July 2, 2010 12:20 PM
So if we use this version of history then, Obama is somewhere in his third term?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dadzilla
July 2, 2010 12:25 PM
Michael Steele, the gift that keeps on giving, never change buddy, you da' man.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
July 2, 2010 12:33 PM
Steele then went on to attack Obama for failing to pass the Public Option
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rccsb
July 2, 2010 12:54 PM in reply to mcc
Why not? The Indiana state AG essentially did that in a piece in our local paper a couple weeks ago.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Snig
July 2, 2010 12:39 PM
Michael Steele is Bizarro Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
July 2, 2010 12:42 PM
Frankly, it dosn't matter if Steele, Palin, Boehner and all the rest are idiots. If, as Frank Rich said on Rachel Maddow's show the other night, that the jobs picture does not drastically improve, the elections in November will be a blood bath. People simply vote out the leadership when things are bad, regardless of how awful the next batch is going to be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jonez
July 2, 2010 12:46 PM in reply to xargaw
but going back to the Republicans is like going back to the 50s. Been there done that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 2, 2010 1:48 PM in reply to xargaw
You've made a good point, but the "wild card" is not knowing how many Americans will still remember what Chimpy and his crew did to America. My take on it is that the teabaggers and repubs will vote the way they always do, but only a few dems will jump ship. I predict a few seats will be lost and that's about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
July 2, 2010 12:43 PM
Why does Michael Steele hate the troops?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jonez
July 2, 2010 12:44 PM
They've completely lost their minds.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
July 2, 2010 1:05 PM
Steele said:
"Well, if he's 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? All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed...."
He's right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 2, 2010 1:16 PM
So supporting the troops means endorsing the war?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 2, 2010 1:34 PM
Oddly enough... he's right!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 2, 2010 8:31 PM in reply to destor23
You must be joking?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 2, 2010 1:43 PM
So Mr. Steele, you're with the terrorists then!
Why do you want to "cut and run" and why do you hate America?! What an IDIOT!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
buddy66
July 2, 2010 1:54 PM
C'mon. During the 2008 campaign Obama said the fight was in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Therefore it IS his war of choice, and it's just as stupid as Bush's invasion of Iraq. Steele is clearly intellectually challenged and often trips over his own talking points. But he's got the futility of it right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
celldumceen
July 2, 2010 2:11 PM
Thank God he's on their side!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sim
July 2, 2010 2:22 PM
Look. Any assertion that this is somehow Obama's war is ludicrous and is calculated to irritate and confound. When the sun shines it is day--moon glow means night. You may not argue to the contrary.
Having said that however, this is precisely how the BIG LIE works and I'm stand amazed that it keeps on working. It is the business of the chairman of the GOP to do this. How long or how many times does this falsehood need to be asserted before all chimpanzees and the majority of concerned humans believe its true? From the looks of these responses, not very long.
We have been the firm grip of corporate fascism for decades--in a death grip for eight. They have quite literally stolen everything--this, while the 'argument' has now become whether this is Obama's war, his economy, his doing. It will take longer than 18 months to undo what has been done. The GOP doesn't get to make the arguments; in fact, the GOP behaves like a criminal enterprise and should be treated as such. Having said that, however, and even given the difficulty, I don't think that Obama is doing enough on any front.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
July 2, 2010 2:35 PM
The hillbilly base of the GOP base their self esteem on the perceived invincibility of the US. This is very bad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jim43
July 2, 2010 2:36 PM
Might be an odd source, but it is the truth. Obama is commander in chief and can end funding requests, bring the troops home and end the occupation any day. There are no legitimate reasons being given by our government for remaining in Afghanistan. The longest war is a failed war.
http://www.facebook.com/campaigncorner
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thepeoplechoose
July 2, 2010 3:31 PM
Steele is right about one thing. We should get out. The notion we can make Afghanistan a different country and change it in a meaingful way is nonsense. Never gonna happen. Not too different from getting rid of corruption in Washington. Slim chance that'll happen either. That the two are related is obvious.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rhaspun
July 2, 2010 4:14 PM
Do Republicans conveniently forget things or do they remember everything? Once during the impeachment hearings on Clinton a Republican Senator said that what had happened was as bad as the Watergate break-in. How many years ago was that Watergate hoopla? I can only imagine in private how some of these Republicans hash over and over on things. We were in Afghanistan with the original intent of hunting down Bin Laden. Which I do agree with. Now we're trying to leave without leaving a unstable country which is going to be very difficult given the history of Afghanistan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SQLInjector
July 2, 2010 4:30 PM
Steele should be gotten rid of but this just goes to show how the Media fail to report on basic issues. The fact that his comment is EVEN SLIGHTLY believable really grinds my gears. There are all kinds of people who will believe ANYTHING due to a lack of critical thinking.
Just today I got an email telling me Everytime You Forward an Email You Donate To Al Queda. Come on people! WE KNOW Afghans get their money from the drug trade and virtually nowhere else.
ARG!
This is a frustrating time to be alive!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
July 2, 2010 5:28 PM in reply to SQLInjector
Note: this guy is a spammer, don't click on the link.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SQLInjector
July 2, 2010 6:43 PM in reply to midnight rambler
Note: this guy has posted this on every comment where i posted a link. Every link I've ever posted on this site has been to articles that are relevant to the topic at hand. He's also ignored every time I didn't post a link. This has caused me to reply to every link he posted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
July 2, 2010 8:05 PM in reply to SQLInjector
You've posted about 10 links to the same post in different articles, and a few more to another article. All but two of the posts listed on your Comments page have those links in them. In all cases the links have nothing to do with either the article or your comment. If you're making repetitive posts of nonsense when you're not trying to drum up hits for your site, you're just a goddamn idiot.
Just getting REALLY FUCKING SICK OF SPAMMERS AROUND HERE!!! KICK THESE ASSHOLES OFF NOW!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SQLInjector
July 3, 2010 6:53 PM in reply to midnight rambler
First off- I'm not a spammer. Second- take a look they aren't the same post. Third- I've never posted anything irrelevant. Many of my posts have replies that indicate OTHER people found the post interesting. Fourth- I understand the frustration with spammers and I understand how if you didn't click the links you could mistaken me for a spammer. WTIM: I've asked TPM to let me have a blog so I can post links and dialog without triggering people to falsely accuse me of being a spammer.
Is there anything I could do to make this more obvious (I'm not being fecious). I've always titled the link the same thing as the article linked. I could put the name of the site in front of the link?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 2, 2010 4:47 PM
1. Create an outrageous lie.
2. Repeat that lie as many times as possible to as many media outlets as you can.
3. Watch as morons begin to accept it.
...old GOP playbook stuff but I'm not surprised at all. Look at the revisionist history of Reagan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ariuszme
July 2, 2010 6:44 PM
"The McChrystal incident, to me, was very comical. And I think it's a reflection of the frustration that a lot of our military leaders have with this Administration and their prosecution of the war in Afghanistan," said Steele. "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."
"It was one of those, one of those areas of the total board of foreign policy ["in the Middle East"? -- Note: The audio is not quite clear in this section.] that we would be in the background, sort of shaping the changes that were necessary in Afghanistan as opposed to directly engaging troops," Steele continued. "But it was the president who was trying to be cute by half by flipping a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan. All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 2, 2010 7:50 PM
I am sorry. This was Mr Bush's war: Afghanistan and Iraq. It was bush who called for the troops to go in; it was Bush who doctored the "evidence" to get approval to get into both areas. It is a crock that the Republicans, the hawks themselves, want to try to redirect this as an Obama fault. It may be President Obama's problem. But the fact is: It is a problem that he INHERITED like the economy. And the real test will be how he gets us out of this stupid war
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winston Smith
July 2, 2010 9:01 PM
I have to agree with the incredible idiot. Afghanistan had very little to do with 9/11.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ariuszme
July 2, 2010 11:41 PM in reply to Winston Smith
but that's not what he said.. read my post above of his exact words that were caught on secret video tape..
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 3, 2010 1:51 AM in reply to Winston Smith
Afghanistan had everything to do with 9/11, that were Osama bin Laden was reported to be...thus the person/reason we went to war.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 3, 2010 1:48 AM
I'm sorry, but is this for real? Can someone be that completely stupid?!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trippin
July 3, 2010 9:07 AM
Bush started in Afghanistan and then abandoned it to divert resources to Iraq. It indeed was Obama who escalated the effort in Afghanistan. So Steele is incorrect in fact but right on in spirit. Obama owns this thing, pure and simple.
Don't forget: Obama campaigned on it. Between ending Iraq, closing Gitmo, ending torture, reinstituting habeas corpus, ending warrantless domestic spying, ending DADT, and escalating Afghanistan, it's the only promise among them he's fulfilled so far.
Steele is correct also in pointing out that no one has ever prevailed in a ground war there. Now you can call that whatever you like, but it's a fact of history nonetheless. Should that give troops serving there pause, well, what would you have us do, lie about it?
The simple fact that so many Republicans detest what Steele says makes it worthy of due consideration.
I don't agree with his objective for saying these things, but I do support drawing down the senseless expenditure of taxpayer money there and in Iraq, as we have many more pressing needs for our citizens here at home.
Support our troops: bring them home. Now. No more excuses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 3, 2010 1:50 PM
The most disturbing feature of that entire video clip seems to have been missed by all the comments above:
Watch the female wearing a black skirt and black and white sweater seated in the right foreground of the shot. Watch her nod, or shake her head in appreciation of, and agreement with Steele's stupid lies. Watch some of the other people listening.
That is scary!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 3, 2010 1:55 PM
The most disturbing feature of that entire video clip seems to have been missed by all the comments above:
Watch the female wearing a black skirt and black and white sweater seated in the right foreground of the shot. Watch her nod, or shake her head in appreciation of, and agreement with Steele's stupid lies. Watch some of the other people listening.
That is scary!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ZeraLee
July 4, 2010 4:46 AM
There is some truth in this. Bush43 went in slow, they went in light, they failed, and they bailed - leaving the war to simmer on the back burner with no exit strategy. Afghanistan was just his introductory offer to prepare the way for the invasion of Iraq.
His war in Afghanistan was half-assed and insincere. He did manage to knock down the poppy crop for a little while, but by 2008 they were producing record crops.
If we leave now, and abandon all those who helped us and trusted us for their security, there will be no going back. When the Taliban return, when al-Qaeda returns, there will be no going back. Iran will not help us invade again, the Afghans will not welcome us or trust us again.
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld made sure we are stuck in Afghanistan until we get it right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gecagecaca
July 4, 2010 10:03 AM
look look look http://www.tnta.us
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
martis
July 5, 2010 1:48 AM
we will never exit afghanistan or iraq under obama as that will open him up to being a coward / loser. these two wars will BANKRUPT the country before a leader of either party has the balls to face reality. and before we dare pull out they will destroy social security, medicare and any other social benefit program as a necessary sacrifice. FFS most of the goddam public still believe that Afghanistan is "winnable". History and reality tell a different story. OBAMA is a fraud, the Dems are frauds and the Republicans are just plain evil.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?