Have Michael Steele's follies finally gone far enough so that the RNC can fire him even though he's black?

The insensible oaf who is chairman of the Republican National committee said at a Connecticut fundraiser on Thursday that the Afghan war is a war "of Obama's choosing ... not something the U.S. had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in ... "

Did Steele actually say that the war started by President Bush after the September 11, 2001 attack with the full support of the American people, and continued by Obama when he took office in January 2009, is a war of Obama's choosing? There's nothing new in saying that Steele is a buffoon who deserved to lose his job long ago and many times over since then. But this latest gaffe is too much, even for the Republican establishment, which of course supports our presence in Afghanistan. William Kristol has written an open letter calling on Steele to resign.


- end of initial entry -

July 4

Jed W. writes:

Whether Steele is an "Insensible oaf" or not is beside the point. He had a moment of clarity when he pointed out that we cannot win in Afghanistan.

And that he has backed off and is incapable of defending his point is also a side story. There is nothing to "win" in Afghanistan. The policy is immoral, illogical and disastrous. Chasing 7th century scum around the mountains of Afghanistan 10,000 miles away and spending vast fortunes and buckets of precious blood to do it does nothing to make us safer or win the so-called "war on terror" (whoever "terror" is). In fact, it diverts attention and resources from the real sources of danger to the west which are the Islamic nukes and the Islamification of the west in all its many manifestations . Fighting in Afghanistan is akin to the old joke about the man who loses a watch in a dark alley and looks for it a block away under a street light because the "light is better over here." The chorus of mainstream conservatives slamming Steele and lauding our nation-building adventure in another miserable corner of Dar el Islam is contemptible as well as stupid politically. That's because if the Republicans are perceived as the party of endless (9 years and that's not long enough) and pointless war, they're going to lose. And so are we.


LA replies:

All this is besides the point. The issue is not what our Afghan policy should be or whether we should be in Afghanistan; I myself have been saying since 2003 that we would be better off invading a troublesome Muslim country for three weeks once every five years than occupying it permanently. The issue is that Steele on his own initiative took a position opposed to that of the party he supposedly leads. If the chairman of the Democratic National Committee declared that Obamacare was wrong and must be repealed, obviously he would have to be dismissed from his position. The same goes for Steele's equally out-of-step-with-his-party position.

Jed replies:

Your argument would be indisputable if the issue of the "war on terror" and Afghanistan was not so monstrous and the Republican blind company-line orthodoxy so disastrous as to trump it. Rather than bend over in every direction to apologize, Steele should have made a principled defense of his statement instead (though he's probably incapable of doing so). This policy and Republican bull-headed support of it are leading us right over a cliff.


LA replies:

I repeat that the substance of the Afganistan issue is not the issue. The issue is that he as the head of the RNC is not the person to be attacking the position of the Republican party. It's just absurd.

Posted by Lawrence Auster