Remember how we hot to the present point in Afghanistan, where President Obama is looking to General Petraeus to save his ass--after Obama, Clinton and other Democrats TRASHED General Petraeus in hi original confirmation hearings when President Bush appointed him to save us in Iraq. Remember the "General Betray Us" add by Moveon.org, which Democrats refused to really criticize? In fact, Democrats like Hillary Clnton endorsed the substance of the add--virtually calling Petraeus a liar--without endorsing the disgraceful headline of the ad. I noted this in articles of mine at the time. Yet, there was hardly a peep out of the mainstream media about the extraordinary admission by Democrats--without ever saying so--as to how WRONG they were on Petraeus (including the President himself). Instead of pointing this out, the mainstream media could only talk about how "brilliant" the obvious appointment of Petraeus was by Obama.


What happened on Afghanistan when Obama came into office? Come on. You remember this one. Obama had been boxed in by the leftist position that Afghanistan was the "good war", which Bush had ignored in favor of Iraq. Now you and I know that most of the left did not really mean it--including most of the mainstream media--but were merely trying to criticize Bush. Most of the left never really supported the war in Afghanistan any more than they supported the war in Iraq. By the way, did you notice that we pretty much WON in Iraq--why Petraeus was approved 99-0--even after Democrats like Harry Reid had declared the war LOST. I digress, sort of. Obama was elected promising to more vigorously prosecute the war in Afghanistan, even to the point of INVADING PAKISTAN. But Obama was faced with the problem that his leftist base really wanted to pull back in Afghanistan, rather than "choose" Afghanistan as the "good war" that Bush had neglected--rather, in other words, than "choose" Afghanistan as a war to be fought harder. True, Obama had essentially just promised to pursue Bush's policy in Afghanistan, only with more emphasis on Afghanistan than Iraq, but it was still a conscious choice on Obama's part to increase the intensity of the war in Afghanistan.


But. Obama equivocated, agonized, and searched tea leaves (or consulted George Soros and MSNBC about how to get out of the box he was in). /"To be (in Afghanistan), or not to be ()in Afghanistan), that is the question. Whether it is nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of an outraged left, or............cut and run." (Apologies to Shakespeare). The generals said they needed more troops in Afghanistan, if Obama was to follow through on his promise to do what was needed in Afghanistan.


For sis long months, or so, President Obama agonized over the decision as to what to do in Afghanistan (undermining whatever decision he made). Obama have such a good portrayal of Hamlet that he won an Oscar, Emmy AND a Tony award--the first to ever sweep all three awards in a single year. Obama said he was "weighing all options" in Afghanistan. In the end, Obama tried to cut the baby in half. After agonizing all of those months, Obama decided to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, but arbitrarily (for no apparent reason other than to show he was not giving General McChrystal everything he wanted) reduce the number of additional troops 20 or 30 thousand (I forget) from the number requested. Worse, Obama confused everyone--except the enemy--by saying that we are, indeed, on our way out of Afghanistan (the "cut and run" option), but not until 2011. The confusion as to what this means still exists today.


Did not Obama make Afghanistan "Obama's War", even if it is also Bush's war? Sure, he did. It could even be said that "Afghanistan is a war of Obama's choosing", the way it is now being fought. What else was Obama agonizing over all of those months?


Go back to Vietnam. Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson's war. Johnson was a Democrat. However, that did not stop Democrats from ALMOST running against the Vietnam War in 1968. RFK would probably have done so, as the nominee, if not for Sirhan Sirhan. Democrats DID run against the war in 1972, with George McGovern, even though a Democratic President had got us into the war. In fact, you could say that TWO Democratic Presidents got us into Vietnam with troops, although--in fairness--JFK only put in "ad visors" without committing us to a major war. That did not stop Democrats, in 1972, from trying to make Vietnam "Nixon's war" (even though Nixon was already in the process of pulling us out).


Enter Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican Party (as if anyone but the mainstream media thinks that is important, or that what he says is really important). You will remember that Howard Dean was chairman of the Democratic Party, but that the mainstream media pretty much ignored what Dean said--and what he says now. Here is the hysterical mainstream media reaction to Michael Steele criticizing the war in Afghanistan, and calling it a "war of Obama's choosing":


"As criticism swelled, Steele issued a statement stressing his support for U.S. troops, but he did not acknowledge his factual error about a war launched by former President George W. Bush in response to the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. A senior official in Bush's administration said it would be impossible for the Republican National Committee to speak with credibility on foreign policy if Steele remained chairman."

Yes, before the above paragraph, the mainstream media reporter quoted conservatives, WITH APPROVAL. That, of course, only happens when conservatives criticize a Republican, or another conservative. For example, I actually heard Chris Matthews pretty much trash Obama's Afghanistan policy, and I believe MSNBC regularly does so, but there is not much reporting that "even leftists" are criticizing President Obama on Afghanistan. Note that the story did NOT quote Republican POLITICIANS, but conservative commentators (mostly). Those are the people thqt the mainstream media never mentions in any other context, unless they say something that the mainstream media things can be used against them (and other conservatives, in "guilt by association").


Note how the mainstream media has emphasized that the war was not of Obama's choosing", but "launched" by President Bush (and stated lby Democrats ever since as the war President Bush should have been concentrating on). Yes, the word "choosing" was confusing by Steele, and surely not the best word. But is that all the mainstream media thinks is important--that Steele is trying to "blame" Obama for a war started by President Bush (in an entirely different original manner, supporting the Northern Alliance rather than in a totally American enterprise like in Iraq)?


As usual, the mainstream media is being stupid, for political reasons. What is wrong with Steele's statement is NOT that he is "blaming" Obama for Bush's war. There is, in fact, an isolationist part of the Republican Party, and of old-style (pre-Goldwater) conservatism, that opposed both the Iraq war and the continuing war in Afghanistan. If Ron Paul had taken over the Republican Party, or even become as influential as Howard Dean became in the Democratic Party, there would be little wrong with Steele's statement other than an inartful choice of words ("choosing"). Ron Paul people--as enthusiastic as the Howard Dean people once were, and a fairly significant , if minority, part of the Tea Party movement--generally OPPOSE the war in Iraq, and I think the war in Afghanistan. It is, in fact, perfectly reasonable to say that we should not be bogged down in an extended war in Afghanistan, and that the war in Iraq was counterproductive. Leftists oppose these wars as IMMORAL (evil America), which they are not, unless you are a pacifist). Some on the right--including, I think, Ron Paul--oppose these wars as a MISTAKE in terms of our own treasure and best interest. If the Republican Party had adopted that position, Steele would be fine. And any Republican CANDIDATES taking that position are fine, even if President Bush did get us into Afghanistan. You are not allowed to vote against President Bush. He is not on the ballot. The question is what we do NOW.


Problem for Michael Steele: There may be, and are, a significant number of people--even a majority--who don't really like what we are NOW doing in Afghanistan. As I imply, I don't like the way Obama has done things, including those ridiculous "rules of engagement", although I think it would be a mistake to abandon Afghanistan (unless we have no choice, which I don't think is YET true--having to do with whether there is any potential to end up with an Afghanistan government that can eventually handle the Taliban). Too many people--for Michael Steele--in the Republican Party are like me (even if I am not really any longer in the Republican Party): We generally support Obama's policy in Afghanistan, even if we don't like a lot of the details. Further, we think that we CAN "win" in Afghanistan (if there is any government there, or even potential government, that will not totally undermine our efforts). Further, Republican CANDIDATES are not generally running against the Afghan War.


That is Michael Steele's real problem--not "foot in mouth disease" over one word, hyped by an antagonistic mainstream media. This is not the first time Steele has done this. Even my mother is aware of other statements by Steele undermining the POSITIONS, and people, of the Republican Party (or a large part of it). More and more, Steele has seemed to have one principle: Michael Steele. He certainly does not have conservative principles, and he has not been very smart about that one principle he does have. You can't have the chairman of the Republican Party out there undermining Republican candidates. That is what Steele has consistently done. No, not in an IMPORTANT way, because candidates don't have a problem disavowing the mere chairman of the party, and voters don't pay much attention to that (despite the best efforts of the mainstream media to help Democrats hype this meaningless stuff--meaningless in terms of voting for a particular candidate).


I say these things about Michael Steele with some reluctance. I thought Steele was the most impressive Republican candidate--of any color, running for any office--in 2006. I said that in print, even after he lost his bid for the United States Senate in Maryland. I thought he lost that bid mainly because of RACIST leftist and mainstream media types who refuse to give a black Republican the respect they give a black Democrat. Of course, 2006 was a Democratic year, and that hurt Steele too. You can tell how impressive he was that year in that he came fairly CLOE to winning, despite these handicaps. Yes, I was well aware that Steele was never a "real" conservative, but I still thought he was extremely impressive (much the way I initially thought Scott Brown was impressive, until he actually got in the Senate). Steele may not have believed everything most conservatives believe, but he was very strong in explaining those things where he did agree with me. What happened?


Well, just like Scott Brown, I don't think Michael Steele was ever "real". In fact, he is a lot like Obama. He seems to be good at saying what people like to hear--even people who know better, like me--but with no real core of principle and intelligence to back up that charisma. Sad, but true. Steele will, and should, make little difference in the 2010 elections, even if he stays in his position. The candidates are what matter, and throwing the present rascals out (then throwing the new rascals, like Scott Brown, out, if they fail to come through). Steele has nothing to do with any of that, except to the extent he could have been a positive force helping Republican candidates (and in the media). He will simply, in my view, not be that kind of force, which leaves it up to the individual;al candidates--and US--to handle it without Steele (ignoring him). This may affect money, but Republicans should have no problem with money this time around (if the individual candidate has any ability at all, or if the Democrat is really disliked, which applies to almost all of them). Scott Brown had little money in the beginning, and little support from the RNC


What about Scott Brown? I see the same problem. There is no core of principle and intelligence there, except a short-term ability to tell people what they want to hear (to promote SCOTT BROWN, in other words). Yes, we knew Brown was not really a conservative, but he was saying so many of the right things about government, spending, and taxes. He was even talked about (by that same stupid mainstream media) as a potential PRESIDENT. You don't hear that anymore, for good reason. It is not the Brown VOTES that are so very bad. It is that Brown instantly became the "go to" guy for the Obama Administration to use some cosmetic "concession" to vote for the Obama agenda. The 2300 page financial "reform" bill was an example. Brown gave Democrats "cover" on that bill by getting it initially through the Senate. Now Brown has discovered "problems" with that bill, as it came out of the "conference", even though he KNEW that was going to happen. And no one who really believes in spending restraint and limited government could have voted for the bill in its Senate form. I give Brown--correctly--NO credit for now reversing himself, when the revised bill came out. Nor do I give him credit for getting some taxes (fees) removed from the revised bill. The spending is still there. The vast increase in government power is still there. The REASONS Brown gives for his actions are worse than the votes themselves. It seems that, like Steele, Brown never had any real principles at all.


Does Obama have any real principles? Unfortunately, I think he does. No, not on Afghanistan, where he has tried to have it all ways. But Obama is LEFT to the core. The way he is like Steele and Brown, as well as most politicians, is that Obama is good at telling people what he thinks they want to hear. In fact, Obama was really good at it--better than either Steele or Brown. In other words, Obama is perfectly willing to HIDE his principles with WORDS. However, the leftist principles are there. I have come to the conclusion that Steele and Brown have no core principles at all that they are "hiding". There is just nothing much there. I am disappointed in myself for being fooled by Steele (more than Brown, since what can you expect out of Massachusetts). Steele shows why, even though he is not in a real position of power, we--as voters--have to learn to THROW THE BUMS OUT. It is impossible not to be occasionally fooled by a charismatic politician. We just have to stop electing these people over and over again. Term limits, yes. But WE have the power to impose term limits, if we use it, including the power to limit politicians to ONE term, if they disappoint.


P.S. Remember Obama's speech when he finally quit playing Hamlet, and announced his decision on the troop surge in Afghanistan? He said that his long delay in making a decision did not delay the actual troop surge by even ONE DAY (lol--Obama is a piece of work). That ridiculous statement was far worse--more untrue-obviously untrue--than anything Steele said. The military promptly said so: saying that they could not meet the troop surge target dates fully because they had not even been able to plan to add troops until Obama made his decision. The mainstream media pretty much ignored Obama's obvious lie--in which he was immediately caught. They did not ask, for example, whether voters would hold the lie against Democrats in the 2010 elections, or whether voters would forget by then. (Obama's later, ridiculous, assertion that he was on top of the Gulf oil spill from Day One carried eerie echoes of this earlier "one day" absurdity. Obama says whatever he thinks sounds good--regardless of the truth--and repeats the same type of rhetorical absurdities over and over again, counting on the media to help bail him out by helping people's memories to be short.)


P.P.S. Is the mainstream media really suggesting that voters SHOULD vote against Republican candidates because of what Michael Steele said? Well, almost. They never quite go that far, except maybe on MSNBC, but the mainstream media obviously WANTS to say that--not matter how ridiculous it is. What else can you say about asking whether Steele is bailing out Democrats in November, or whether voters will FORGET by then. Forget what? If voters vote TODAY, only STUPID voters would vote against an actual CANDIDATE because of what Steele said. This kind of reaction actually shows the CONTEMPT in which the mainstream media holds people. They, and leftist Democrats, think people vote for STUPID reasons (partly because they have sometimes been successful in convincing people to do that). I don't share that view. Voters are not generally that dumb, and I think they are getting smarter. That is why the mainstream media is headed for the dustbin of history. Michael Steele's dumb statement--dumb for the reasons I state--should, and will, affect the career of MICHAEL STEELE. It has nothing to do with how voters should, or will, vote on actual CANDIDATES in November.