Internal Monologue agrees with GOP chair Steele
Republican Chair Michael Steele attacks the war in Afghanistan! Bill Kristol is not happy about this. Sullivan hopes this starts a genuine debate within the American right about the war in Afghanistan.
It's interesting how the partisan politics plays into this: Republicans have recently been the advocates of the more militarist approach to fighting terrorism, so one would expect the Chair of the Republican Party to support the Afghan war, as they did under Bush. But Republicans have been almost reflexively against anything Obama pushes forward, even things that Republicans recently advocated (e.g. Massachusetts-style health care reform, cap-and-trade CO2 reduction). Since Obama has identified himself more and more with the Afghanistan occupation (foolishly and immorally, in my opinion), it makes sense that Republicans would attack it. I might find myself with a strange set of political allies on this issue!
My guess is that Michael Steele was following the second script (attack what Obama wants) rather than the first script (support American military actions) and this got him in trouble with many Republicans who believe the first script is the more important.
Sadly, the DNC and some others on the left are attacking Steele in a Rovian way, accusing him of "betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan." I abhor and condemn this. When Bush and his allies attempted to silence war critics with this kind of rhetoric, it was despicable. And it's despicable when Democrats and those on the left do it, too.
It's interesting how the partisan politics plays into this: Republicans have recently been the advocates of the more militarist approach to fighting terrorism, so one would expect the Chair of the Republican Party to support the Afghan war, as they did under Bush. But Republicans have been almost reflexively against anything Obama pushes forward, even things that Republicans recently advocated (e.g. Massachusetts-style health care reform, cap-and-trade CO2 reduction). Since Obama has identified himself more and more with the Afghanistan occupation (foolishly and immorally, in my opinion), it makes sense that Republicans would attack it. I might find myself with a strange set of political allies on this issue!
My guess is that Michael Steele was following the second script (attack what Obama wants) rather than the first script (support American military actions) and this got him in trouble with many Republicans who believe the first script is the more important.
Sadly, the DNC and some others on the left are attacking Steele in a Rovian way, accusing him of "betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan." I abhor and condemn this. When Bush and his allies attempted to silence war critics with this kind of rhetoric, it was despicable. And it's despicable when Democrats and those on the left do it, too.
Comments