RNC CHAIRMAN MICHAEL STEELE BETS AGAINST OUR TROOPS, ROOTS FOR FAILURE
"Here goes Michael Steele setting policy for the GOP again. The likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham will be interested to hear that the Republican Party position is that we should walk away from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban without finishing the job. They'd also be interested to hear that the Chairman of the Republican Party thinks we have no business in Afghanistan notwithstanding the fact that we are there because we were attacked by terrorists on 9-11.
"And, the American people will be interested to hear that the leader of the Republican Party thinks recent events related to the war are 'comical' and that he is betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan. It's simply unconscionable that Michael Steele would undermine the morale of our troops when what they need is our support and encouragement. Michael Steele would do well to remember that we are not in Afghanistan by our own choosing, that we were attacked and that his words have consequences."
This statement is getting some pushback from the left -- specifically, in regards to it's Bush-like neocon tone. For example, "undermine the morale of our troops when what they need is our support and encouragement" is pretty much the same argument the Bush administration and the Republican Party used against Democrats and liberals committed to ending the war in Iraq. Worse, "his words have consequences" echoes back to Bush's first press secretary Ari Fleischer's ominous warning; "all Americans... need to watch what they say, watch what they do."
"Clearly, Dems are opting for strong language to break through on a Friday before a holiday weekend in the belief that this does raise real questions about Steele's candor," Sargent wrote. "But this is Karl Rove's playbook. I don't care how often Republicans do it -- this blog is not on board with this kind of thing from either party."
"I haven't forgotten the Bush/Cheney years," Steve Benen agreed, "and the disgusting rhetoric Republicans used to attack any American who voiced disagreement over the war(s). Dissent was equated with disloyalty. Words like 'treason,' 'traitor,' and 'fifth columnists,' weren't just thrown around casually, they were literally a daily part of the public discourse.
"But Republicans were wrong at the time, and such tactics are still wrong now. If the DNC wants to exploit Steele's remarkable comments for all their worth, that's more than fair. But once the DNC starts equating opposition to the war with 'rooting for failure' and 'undermining the morale of our troops,' the party is reading from the wrong script."
Democrats could've focused on the idiocy of saying that Afghanistan was "Obama's war of choice" and been fine. They could've even written the same hyperbolic statement they released -- after adding appropriate irony by sticking the words "Republicans under Bush would've said..." in there someplace.
But they didn't. They opted for the same idiotic "Shut up or you hate America!!" rhetoric that's brought our country to a level of stupidity that fosters teabaggers. Our national dialogue has been poisoned enough with phony flag-waving and militant grandstanding, thank you very much, we really don't need any more. Leave the "hate America!" stuff to bloggers like me, who wield it as a tool of poetic justice (and do the people who find themselves on the other end of that tool ever deserve it) and a source of humor. We're able to make it clear we don't really mean it or -- in the cases where we fail on that point -- it doesn't matter anyway.
One party having lost its mind through a sort of zealotry of military worship is plenty, I think. Someone's got to stay sober enough to drive this country.
