ANDY MARTIN: Michael Steele was right, John McCain is wrong on Afghanistan

Middle East expert Andy Martin rips geezer Senator John McCain and warrior-wannabe candidate Mark Kirk to shreds for attacking Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele over Steele’s remarks concerning “Obama’s war.” Martin joins Ann Coulter in defending Steele.

Internet powerhouse Andy Martin defends RNC Chairman Michael Steele against attacks by Geezer John McCain and Weasel Mark Kirk

ContrarianCommentary.com
“The Internet Powerhouse”
Andy Martin
Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Andy Martin says Michael Steele told the truth about Barack Obama’s “ownership” of the war in Afghanistan

Martin says the Afghanistan mission is wrong and Steele is right

Andy slips into bed with Ann Coulter (uggh)

(NEW YORK)(July 8, 2010) This is a column I would prefer not to write.

I am not a particular supporter or admirer of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. But in this instance I am defending Steele against the attacks of the Republican Party’s designated geezer John McCain and the comments of the party’s designated weasel Mark Kirk. (I actually sued Michael Steele last year for supporting America’s Biggest Liar, Mark Kirk, in the Illinois senate primary.)

Supporting Steele also puts me in bed with Ann Coulter, who is one of the more obnoxious stooges on Fox news.

But because I value truth more than party loyalty, here goes.

Last week Michael Steele told the truth. He said Afghanistan was “Obama’s war.” Steele also said the war was “not winnable.”

I am something of an expert on Afghanistan and southwest Asia. I first went to Afghanistan over 30 years ago. I was an early critic of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and I spent a good deal of 2003 in Baghdad. As a Republican candidate, I have consistently opposed escalation in Afghanistan. My views are informed by real experience on the ground all across Asia, and particularly the hotspots of Iraq and Afghanistan. And my views, for partially differing reasons, line up with Steele’s.

Unfortunately, my voice is drowned out by the extreme blowhard and increasingly incompetent Senator John McCain. McCain and his “war party” love Afghanistan because they claim an expanded war in Afghan is part of the global war against terror (which I strongly support). So can I be for the war against terror and against a buildup in Afghanistan? Absolutely. Read on.

There is a third party in bed with me and Ann Coulter (thankfully): General Stanley McChrystal. McChrystal and his staff knew that Barack Obama was a dilettante warrior who would tire of Afghanistan when it no longer suited his political purposes. That’s why McChrystal’s staff was so dismissive of Obama in the controversial Rolling Stone article.

Obama became a supporter of the Afghan war in 2008 when it suited his political agenda of opposing our involvement in Iraq. He characterized Afghanistan as a war of necessity. On the contrary, Obama’s “support” was pure expediency.

When Steele waded into this controversy last week he had the Afghan issue exactly right. Obama “adopted” Afghanistan during the 2008 campaign, and Obama has expanded an unwinnable war. (The war is unwinnable except in the vivid imagination of Mark Kirk, who previously claimed he “came under fire” in Kandahar, Afghanistan but yesterday “retreated” from his combat claim to say “read my efficiency reports.” Kirk is the greatest warrior in recent history, certainly greater than McChrystal, but it is all in Kirk’s vivid imagination; Kirk has no combat record in reality. He is a military imposter.)

Last week we had Grandpa John McCain, who is running for reelection in Arizona next month, wasting taxpayer’s money by going on a 4th of July junket to Afghanistan. From Kabul, McCain attacked Steele for telling the truth. With the notable exception of the 2007 “surge” in Iraq which McCain supported, McCain has always been totally wrong on Middle East military matters.

McCain, who appears to increasingly be out of touch with any reality, except his own vanity, strongly supports another unwinnable war, this time in Afghanistan. Weasel Mark Kirk chimed in by saying Steele should “reassess” his RNC role. (The only one who never “reassesses” is the “Closeted Congressman” himself, Mark Kirk. Kirk has made a laughingstock out of the Republican Party.) On and on they go.

To her credit, Ann Coulter gave one of the most precise and intelligent analyses of recent Republican miscues as she defended Michael Steele: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=176033

While Coulter and I disagree on the folly of invading Iraq (we could have taken down Saddam Hussein much more cheaply and easily) we agree totally on the mess in Afghanistan and Steele's take on our current role there.

So why are Republicans attacking Steele for telling the truth? As a Republican I am embarrassed to say that when it comes to foreign policy, Republicans are often as dumb, if not dumber, than the Democrats. In 2006 I ran a commercial across the State of Illinois warning President Bush that he had to pay more attention to Main Street and less attention to the Arab Street in Baghdad. Republicans viciously attacked me (I still have the e-mails). They were blindly loyal: to war. They could not see the developing 2006 electoral debacle.

The media encourage Republican stupidity. Liberal media honchos (and Fox News) promote Republican John McCain and his trio of castratos, Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman. Instead of going home for the Fourth of July, McCain and his buddies ripped off the taxpayers for tens of thousands of dollars to “inspect” Afghanistan. The trip was a publicity parade. McCain is looting our tax dollars to generate coverage for his primary reelection next month. It’s disgraceful. But because McCain serves the media as the Republican Party’s designated loser, no one questions his waste and abuse of taxpayer resources.

So what’s the bottom line?

First, the criticism of Steele that President Bush, not Obama, created the Afghanistan war is nonsense. That's the media's first lie and distortion. No one doubts that Bush authorized the successful attack in 2001. (Sadly, Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan and blundered into Iraq.) But Obama took ownership of the war in 2008, and it is increasingly “his” war.

Second, when Obama adopted the Afghan war in 2008 and made it “his war” he did so for purposes of political expediency. Obama has no problem playing politics with the lives of our men and women in uniform when it furthers his own political aggrandizement.

Third, General Stanley McChrystal was Obama’s man in Kabul. McChrystal was chosen for the Afghanistan mission by Obama’s team, not Bush’s. The general was following Obama’s orders, not Bush’s.

Fourth (I am writing myself into the story), last year and this year I have strongly opposed expanding the Afghanistan mission. More men mean fewer results. In order to succeed (not "win") in Afghanistan, we have to starve the mission and reduce our commitment. Afghanistan is a Special Forces and special ops conflict, not a “land war in Asia.”

Fifth, as long as the corrupt Karzai regime is in power, which we keep in power, Afghanistan is a sinkhole. Victory is impossible. “Karzai Corruption” is defeating our efforts much more than Taliban bullets.

Sixth, while Republicans should not play politics with war, they should start tuning their antennas to political reality: the majority of the Democratic Party in Congress is now voting against Afghanistan, and it is only a matter of time before Republicans are stranded high and dry and attacked as war mongers by Democratic candidates. Read My earlier column on McChrystal.

Seventh, it is possible to strongly support the global war against terror, as I do, and equally strongly oppose expanding the mission in Afghanistan. While the two share some common elements they are not one and the same.

Eighth, John McCain is ripping off American taxpayers by taking joyrides to Afghanistan and Iraq with his pals, all as part of his primary reelection campaign, none of which has any military or congressional oversight value. McCain is a delirious geezer whose views on military policy have been totally discredited with one notable exception (even broken clocks tell the right time twice a day).

Ninth, the liberal media have a real desire to demonize Michael Steele and to discredit him as a Republican Party leader. The media are “whipping” Steele because they want to “whip” African-Americans out of the idea that an African is welcome in the Republican Party. Most Republicans (except dodoes such as McCain) have nothing against Steele. But if you are going to invite diversity in a political party, you need to realize that people have diverse perspectives. And diverse opinions.

The natural home for African-Americans should be the Republican Party. Conservative cultural views and economic opportunity flow from Republican values. Democrats imprisoned blacks on welfare “plantations” in Chicago and other major cities for decades. So the media are working overtime to discredit Steele and to force him off the stage as a Republican leader. Republicans, wake up! (And yes, that goes for African-Americans too; it is time you woke up and abandoned the Democratic Party, unless you enjoy being perpetual victims and hostages of Democratic welfare programs.)

Thank you Michael Steele for telling the truth. If you had more guts, you would shove it right back at McCain and weenie Kirk, and the rest, and tell them they are wrong and their views are what got the Republican Party booted out of Congress and the White House in the first place (2006-2008). Memories are short.

When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?

As for blowhard geezer McCain, the fact that he is the favorite of the liberal media should tell you something. Wake up, Arizona Republicans!

And as for Coulter, I do have to salute her honesty and intelligence in defending Steele. But stop pulling the sheets, Ann.

-------------------------------------
ABOUT ANDY: Andy Martin is the legendary New York and Chicago-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of background in radio and television and is the dean of Illinois media and communications. He promotes his best-selling book, “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” and his Internet movie "Obama: The Hawai'i years." Martin has been a leading corruption fighter in Illinois for over forty years. He is currently sponsoring www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com
Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” http://www.contrariancommentary.com/. He comments on regional, national and world events with more than four decades of investigative and overseas experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).

UPDATES: www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSAwww.facebook.com/AndyMartin Andy's columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com.
contrariancommentary.typepad.com[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in this story on our blogs; find our latest edition there.]

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com © Copyright by Andy Martin 2010

Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin says "Leave Michael Steele alone, already,"

Andy Martin presents his blueprint for a modern Republican Party

Martin says Americans want leaders, not dictators, in congress and the White House

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

ANDY MARTIN SAYS that CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS SHOULD THANK THEIR LUCKY STARS FOR MICHAEL STEELE

MARTIN SAYS STEELE SHOULD REOPEN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO CONFLICTING POINTS OF VIEW

ANDY MARTIN JOINS TWITTER.COM FOR UPDATES

(NEW YORK)(March 13, 2009) Michael Steele, the new Chairman of the Republican National Committee, is catching hell—from Republicans. I am happy to defend Steele despite his missteps. Republicans should thank their lucky stars they have Mr. Steele as their "leader."

Recently Steele made some boneheaded remarks about Rush Limbaugh, and for those he was properly criticized. Rush is not an official part of the Republican Party, and he has every right to say what he wants. I don't agree with everything Limbaugh says, but then not everyone agrees with everything I say. I have readers who are absolutely devoted to me on the issue of Barack Obama, and who also think my views on the Middle East are dead wrong.

And so, yes, Steele was rightly taken to the woodshed for criticizing Limbaugh, someone who does not speak as a Republican Party "leader" and is not a party functionary. In a media-addled world, people do have to "shout a little louder" to be heard, and Rush Limbaugh is certainly heard. Without betraying any envy (there is none), I would like to have Limbaugh's platform. Leave Rush alone. Let Limbaugh be Limbaugh.

Steele learned that making offhanded comments about Rush on live TV can be dangerous. It is a lesson well learned and, in his case, learned early.

Just as the Limbaugh brouhaha was starting to subside, Steele received new criticism for an interview given weeks ago but that is only now appearing in GQ magazine. Former Governor Mike Huckabee was quick to suggest Steele was suggesting infanticide. Ken Blackwell, a former Ohio official, went further and demanded that Steele "reread the Bible." Whoa.

First, let me state the obvious. Both parties, whether they like it or not, are "big tents." Not all Democrats, and certainly not all Democrats in Congress, are Nancy Pelosi liberals. Likewise, Republicans reflect differing views, although the Republican Party's primary election base has become even more extreme than the Democrats' primary election base.

The problem for Republicans is that the party has been vanishing before our eyes. The Midwest has lost Republican representation. There is not one Republican in Congress from the Northeast. The "national" Republican Party is being regionalized and marginalized into a party primarily based in the south. McCain even lost stalwart Florida in 2008. Not a good sign.

Yes, there are lots of Republicans in Illinois, and Indiana, and Ohio, and so forth; and yes the RP is going to elect a lot of new officials in 2010. But the party's long-term sustainability and viability have been deteriorating for decades.

Up until the 1970's, Republicans were a much bigger tent and more tolerant tent than they are today. As recently as the 1960's Republicans even elected a congressman from Manhattan. Yes, Manhattan, New York (New York City).

So what happened? Why is the party's base narrowing?

Until Ronald Reagan arrived on the national scene, evangelical, pro-life voters were found in both parties. Abortion was not seen as a "political" issue. Reagan adopted the pro-life position as an official part of the Republican platform, and he rode "Reagan Democrats" into a 1980 victory.

America has evolved since 1980. But many Republicans would like to pretend, or perhaps want to believe, that America has not changed in almost 30 years. Obviously we have. And we are going to change a lot more in the next 30 years, from 2010 to 2040.

How can Republicans survive and grow?

Mr. Steele is the answer. At a minimum he is part of the solution.

First, Steele represents a clear break from the past. Great. Because I am a Republican, I can say "we" needed to change.

Second, Steele spoke the truth to GQ, and the attacks on him reflect the attitudes of people that think they can win in 2010 the same was Reagan did in 1980. To be blunt, "those days are gone forever."

I like the fact that the Republican Party is a conservative party. Unfortunately we abandoned any sense of restraint in matters fiscal during the past eight years, began a war in Iraq that made no sense, and paid for these mistakes at the ballot box. Voters who had tolerated conservative dogma on social issues and still voted for Republicans because of their belief in fiscal restraint and an avoidance of foreign entanglements, saw that Republicans had been "reduced" like a chef's overheated sauce into nothing more than strident social issues. We had forfeited any sense of fiscal or foreign policy responsibility.

If John McCain had not, to use a pilot's term, "flamed out" during the week when he suspended his campaign and made a fool of himself, and had instead voted against the original Wall Street bailout, as I felt he should have, he would be sitting in the White House today. Of course, McCain was also "too liberal" for the right-wing groaners who are now attacking Steele. The right wing has a totally delusional view of what the next Republican president is going to look like.

Can Republicans become a national party again? Maybe. Maybe not. We must emphatically distinguish between wining a few elections and winning the hearts and minds of the American people. Yes, Republicans will win, and probably will win big in 2010. But that "anti" vote in 2010 will be a reflection of buyer's remorse with Obama, not an acceptance of dictatorial Republican attitudes on social issues as conservatives will claim. And no, winning in reaction to Democratic blunders does not rebuild the party nationally.

So where do I come down on the ultimate issues, and why do I support Steele?

First, Republicans need to realize that they can be conservative without being dictatorial. No one likes abortions. I don't. But given a choice between judges and prosecutors to make decisions on the one hand, and doctors and mothers on the other, I trust mothers and doctors, however flawed their judgment may be.

Public officials have enough on their plate without being told to supervise and superintend either teenage sex or abortion practices. If I have to "choose" between a courthouse and a hospital as the decision-making location, I choose the medical facility.

Senator McCain saw what happens when you preach morality without practicality. He chose someone to be his running mate whom I liked. And I still like. Governor Sarah Palin. But she was no more immune from family problems than anyone else. Ironically, I disagree with Palin on social issues, but I like her moxie and would like to be able to support her once (and if) she is shorn of her authoritarian instincts on social policy. And please no lectures about "banning" abortion.

Pro-lifers? Some of the nicest people I have met in politics are pro-life. They are wonderful people. I love 'em. As an abstract principle, I agree with them. In practice, I feel we must accept humanity as flawed, and adopt social policies that allow individuals, not institutions, to control the private lives of our citizens.

I worked for a U. S. Senator, Paul Douglas, who lived a full public life in the twentieth century. One of his favorite expressions, given to many as well as to me, was "When I was a young man, I wanted to save the world. Then I was middle-aged and I was content to try and save the United States in World War II. Today I would be content to save the (Indiana) dunes." He saved the dunes.

In order to buy votes, all politicians make promises they can’t keep. Just as Republicans constantly betray their right-wing "base" when in office, Obama Democrats are doing likewise to their left-wing base today.

In Paul Douglas' spirit, I would be happy if the Republican Party were committed to (1) keeping the United States safe and strong; (2) ensuring that we maintain a strong and free economy and (3) fighting to keep corruption and conflicts of interest out of our public life.

Sadly, extremist voters never want to hear the truth. They love politicians who pander and, in the case of Republicans, many "conservatives" would rather lose than confront reality. In 2006 I ran commercials across the State of Illinois calling on President Bush to rethink our Iraq strategy. I was viciously attacked by right-wingers. I responded that they could listen to me, or hear it all from the Democrats on Election Day. They preferred to listen to the Democrats, and Republicans were wiped out. There was no room for pragmatism and conservatism in their view. It was all or nothing, and they got nothing.

They got nothing again in 2008 when Senator McCain took an early lead, and then fumbled his lead when Obama appeared "safe and secure" in the face of the economic crisis, and McCain suddenly appeared wobbly and inconsistent. McCain lost.

The Republican Party is not going to vanish. But if they maintain a strident attitude towards society, they are not going to fool anyone into voting for their presidential candidate either. Republicans will increasingly become a minority party that only gets an electoral mandate in response to Democratic failures, instead of being a party with an affirmative base of support.

For example, the Republican Party is not going to be chosen to amend the Constitution to ban abortion. That's nonsense.

If Republicans were honest with voters, and said "We need to do everything we can to avoid the need for abortions, consistent with a practical recognition of the reality of human behavior," they would be on the road to majority status again.

Likewise, many Democrats as well as Republicans want to take a traditional view of marriage. But being cautious on gay rights does not mean being hostile to civil unions. Steele spoke the truth when he said no one chooses to be gay. We have just as many gays in the Republican Party as they do in the Democratic Party. Why not be honest and embrace them?

Reliving the Reagan dream is not going to bring back Reagan. I liked Reagan; but I am also aware that a campaign appealing to Reagan's 1980 issues is not going to find favor in 2010, or 2012.

Michael Steele should confront the Republican Party, gently, subtly and without attacking Rush or anyone else. He should "stir it up" with provocative views on social and political issues. And he should try to narrow the party's dogma and broaden the party's support, by adopting the genuine "political restraint" reflected in a platform pledged simply to keeping America strong, keeping our economy strong and fighting corruption in our national institutions. Those are three issues with 100% support across the political spectrum. Now that's "real" limited government.

The 1994 "Contract With America" was a simple proclamation; Republicans won. If Republicans could accomplish my three goals—and they failed miserably on all counts during the Bush years—they would win again and be a national party. Republicans need to embrace the concept of letting people make their own decisions about how to live their lives, with a minimum of government interference, not a maximum of legislated morality.

Do I hope Michael Steele survives and succeeds? Yes I do. And to my Republican friends, "Please be a little quieter and a little more tolerant and a little more aware of the real world. If you want a rigid social catechism, join the Catholic Church, not the Republican Party. Trust the people, and listen to their voice. Obama did. The rest is history."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: Amazon.com or http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or signed copies (delayed for signing) from the publisher are available.
----------------------------------------
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is raising money to oppose President Barack Obama.
http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com.
Please give generously. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American.
“The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama has no bundlers, no fat cats and no illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised an almost billion dollar slush fund, his opponents have not been able to raise sufficient resources. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
E-mail: contact@CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com
----------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting experience in radio and television and is the dean of Illinois media and communications. He is currently promoting his best-selling book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com.

Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over four decades of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York. He is an announced candidate for Barack Obama’s former U. S. Senate seat in 2010, www.AndyforUSSenator.com.

His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com.
Updates: www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329 (not always on)
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]
© Copyright by Andy Martin 2009.