posted July 07, 2010 11:24 PM         

Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele was absolutely right. Afghanistan is Obama's war and, judging by other recent Democratic ventures in military affairs, isn't likely to turn out well.

It has been idiotically claimed that Steele's statement about Afghanistan being Obama's war is "inaccurate" -- as if Steele is unaware Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11. (No one can forget that -- even liberals pretended to support that war for three whole weeks.)

Yes, Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11. Within the first few months we had toppled the Taliban, killed or captured hundreds of al-Qaida fighters and arranged for democratic elections, resulting in an American-friendly government.

Then Bush declared success and turned his attention to Iraq, leaving minimal troops behind in Afghanistan to prevent Osama bin Laden from regrouping, swat down al-Qaida fighters and gather intelligence.

Having some vague concept of America's national interest -- unlike liberals -- the Bush administration could see that a country of illiterate peasants living in caves ruled by "warlords" was not a primo target for "nation-building."

By contrast, Iraq had a young, educated, pro-Western populace that was ideal for regime change.

If Saddam Hussein had been a peach, it would still be a major victory in the war on terrorism to have a Muslim Israel in that part of the globe, and it sure wasn't going to be Afghanistan (literacy rate, 19 percent; life expectancy, 44 years; working toilets, 7).

But Iraq also was a state sponsor of terrorism; was attempting to build nuclear weapons (according to endless bipartisan investigations in this country and in Britain -- thanks, liberals!); nurtured and gave refuge to Islamic terrorists -- including the 1993 World Trade Center bombers; was led by a mass murderer who had used weapons of mass destruction; paid bonuses to the families of suicide bombers; had vast oil reserves; and is situated at the heart of a critical region.

Having absolutely no interest in America's national security, the entire Democratic Party (save Joe Lieberman) wailed about the war in Iraq for five years, pretending they really wanted to go great-guns in Afghanistan. What the heck: They had already voted for the war in Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 when they would have been hanged as traitors had they objected.

The obsession with Afghanistan was pure rhetoric. Democrats have no interest in fighting any war that would serve America's interests. (They're too jammed with their wars against Evangelicals, Wal-Mart, the Pledge of Allegiance, SUVs and the middle class.) Absent Iraq, they'd have been bad-mouthing Afghanistan, too.

So for the entire course of the magnificently successful war in Iraq, all we heard from these useless Democrats was that Iraq was a "war of choice," while Afghanistan -- the good war! -- was a "war of necessity." "Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan!" "He got distracted by war in Iraq!" "WHERE'S OSAMA?" and -- my favorite -- "Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11!"

Of course, neither did Afghanistan. But Democrats were in a lather and couldn't be bothered with the facts.

The above complaints about Iraq come -- nearly verbatim -- from speeches and press conferences by Obama, Joe Biden, and Obama's national security advisers Susan Rice and Richard Clarke. Also, the entire gutless Democratic Party. Some liberals began including them in their wedding vows.

(By the way, Democrats: WHERE'S OSAMA?)

Obama hasn't ramped up the war in Afghanistan based on a careful calculation of America's strategic objectives. He did it because he was trapped by his own rhetorical game of bashing the Iraq war while pretending to be a hawk on Afghanistan.

At this point, Afghanistan is every bit as much Obama's war as Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson's war. True, President Kennedy was the first to send troops to Vietnam. We had 16,000 troops in Vietnam when JFK was assassinated. Within four years, LBJ had sent 400,000 troops there.

In the entire seven-year course of the Afghanistan war under Bush, from October 2001 to January 2009, 625 American soldiers were killed. In 18 short months, Obama has nearly doubled that number to 1,124 Americans killed.

Republicans used to think seriously about deploying the military. President Eisenhower sent aid to South Vietnam, but said he could not "conceive of a greater tragedy" for America than getting heavily involved there.

As Michael Steele correctly noted, every great power that's tried to stage an all-out war in Afghanistan has gotten its ass handed to it. Everyone knows it's not worth the trouble and resources to take a nation of rocks and brigands.

Based on Obama's rules of engagement for our troops in Afghanistan, we're apparently not even fighting a war. The greatest fighting force in the world is building vocational schools and distributing cheese crackers to children.

There's even talk of giving soldiers medals for NOT shooting people, which I gather will be awarded posthumously. Naomi Campbell is rougher with her assistants than our troops are allowed to be with Taliban fighters.

But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest.

What if Obama decides to invade England because he's still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops?

Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they're not the ones setting military policy. The president is -- and he's basing his war strategy on the chants of Moveon.org cretins.

Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war -- and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)

I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too.

Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican, we're all going to have to get on board for amnesty and a "National Greatness Project," too – other Kristol ideas for the Republican Party. Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president -- and look how great that turned out!

posted July 08, 2010 09:17 AM         

The title leads the reader to believe it is about Bill Kristal and ramble, ramble, hither, dither, and yawn, There it is! All the way at the bottom finally a reference to Kristal tied with a Liz Cheney bow.

I noticed quite awhile ago how disorganized the Coulter mind is. Topics are merely weak springboards for a splintered agenda.

and speaking of splintered agendas...howz about:

quote:

---

New Breed of GOP Groups Rises to Party's Challenges
-------------------------------------

WASHINGTON (July 7) -- Depending on whom you ask, the proliferation of new conservative groups here represents either a "shadow" Republican Party aimed at getting around the dysfunctional real thing or a political renaissance by a GOP that sees its best chance in years to regain power in the capital.

A combination of factors -- from the gaffe-prone chairman of the Republican National Committee to the Supreme Court's landmark Citizens United case to the Democrats' continued unpopularity -- has spurred a new generation of right-leaning advocacy groups, think tanks and polling groups. Among the new breed:

• Liberty Central: The well-funded conservative think tank founded by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' wife, Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, has emerged as "a bridge between the conservative establishment and the anti-establishment tea party," as Politico puts it.

• American Crossroads: Founded by former White House senior adviser Karl Rove and former Republican Party chairman Ed Gillespie, this group may be the most formidable outside the normal party apparatus. After raising a paltry $200 in its first month, it brought in $8 million in June and is sticking to its goal of spending $50 million to help elect like-minded candidates in November.

• American Action Network and Forum:
  Headed by former Sen. Norm Coleman, this combination "action tank" and policy shop bills itself as an independent, center-right version of the Center for American Progress, the liberal think tank founded in 2003 by former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta.

  "These groups are springing up because this country is moving in a path of expanded growth of government, stifling debt and higher taxes and people want to change that," Coleman told AOL News. "We see an opportunity in 2010 that wasn't there before."

  John Feehery, a Republican strategist working with American Action, said it is designed to be a "Heritage Foundation 2.0, meant to be a little more mobile, a little bit quicker" to match the speed and reach of MoveOn.org, labor unions and other left-leaning groups.

  So far, the group has been active in just one race, spending $480,000 on TV ads to help unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Political Director Carl Forti said the group "plans to be very active in the fall."

  
  

• Resurgent Republic: Also founded by Gillespie as well as veteran GOP strategist Whit Ayres, Resurgent Republic started 18 months ago to conduct polls and run focus groups in a way that "seeks to replicate on the right the success Democracy Corps has enjoyed on the left," according to its website. The group's research was among the first to report a shift by independent voters toward the Republican Party and provided talking points for congressional opponents of President Barack Obama's health care reform plans.

  The new conservative groups aren't the first to work outside the GOP establishment -- even if many of their key personnel are inside-the-Beltway veterans. Freedom's Watch, which billed itself as a conservative version of MoveOn, spent $30 million during the 2008 cycle but shut down soon after the election when it failed to get close to the $250 million it had promised to spend to defeat Democrats that year.

  Eric Schultz, communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said the groups are a sure sign that Republicans are "cashing in."

  "Whether it's big oil, big insurers or big banks, Republicans have sided with the corporate interests on nearly every issue facing the country," he said. "But Democrats are going to have the resources we need to wage competitive campaigns in each of our targeted states."

  ---

Coulter: "the magnificently successful war in Iraq" that is hilarious!