The GOP has their own equivalent of Democrat Gaffemaster General, Vice President Joe Biden. That would be Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele. Get a load of what Steele said about the Afghanistan War:

“Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama’s choosing. This was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in,” he said. “But it was the president who was trying to be cute by half by building a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan. Well, if he is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that’s the one thing you don’t do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan?”

A war of OBAMA'S choosing ??? Do I even need to point out how ridiculous Steele's statement is ? The Afghanistan War started in 2001 as a response to the 9/11 attacks. The President then was George W. Bush. The Republican party has consistently supported the war. If it was really Obama who chose the war, he somehow did so from the Illinois state legislature. Obama inherited the war from Bush when he became President over seven years later. Afghanistan has also been a land war for years, and if Michael Steele was a student of history, he'd know that.

Even worse, Michael Steele was saying something totally different six months ago, when he SUPPORTED the troop surge in Afghanistan:

"Although this decision took far too long and it should not have, I am glad the president will finally provide General McChrystal with the troops he needs," Steele said in December in response to President Obama's decision to greenlight a surge in Afghanistan. "However, tonight's speech must be the beginning, not the end, of the case President Obama makes to the American people as to why this is, as he said during the campaign, 'a war we have to win.' If the president remains committed to this crucial fight, Republicans – and the American people – will stand with him. But sending mixed signals by outlining the exit before these troops even get on the ground undermines their ability to succeed."

Thus, Steele firmly supported the land war in Afghanistan that he…said…history…shows…you…should…never…get…into. Hmmm.

I do give Steele credit for one thing. Unlike Biden, who never clarifies his gaffes, Steele made an attempt to spin out of his. Here is his latest statement:

“There is no question that America must win the war on terror,” Steele said. “During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Barack Obama made clear his belief that we should not fight in Iraq, but instead concentrate on Afghanistan. Now, as President, he has indeed shifted his focus to this region. That means this is his strategy. And, for the sake of the security of the free world, our country must give our troops the support necessary to win this war.”

I see. Steele was saying the surge is Obama's strategy (even though he said previously the war was of Obama's choosing). Okay, I might accept that, but why has Steele reverted back to his support for winning the war in Afghanistan, when he just castigated Obama for pursuing it, based upon, you know, history ? Did history change in the last six months ?

Michael Steele – pick a position and stick with it. I know this is politics, where the bs flows like oil into the Gulf, but if you want to bs, at least be good at it. Even better, you could drop the partisan claptrap altogether and just tell the truth.

Seizing upon the opportunity to demonize Steele, the Democratic National Committee sprang into action. Here's DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse:

"…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."

My, how things change. Woodhouse's comments sound exactly like what Republicans having been saying about Democrats for the last 8+ years. I'm glad we finally have the DNC on record supporting the war, but Woodhouse might want to check in with his liberal base, which has been highly critical of Obama for not withdrawing from Afghanistan. What the DNC spokesman said about Steele could just as easily apply to his own party. From the Washington Post:

Are liberal Dems who have made much the same case about Afghanistan also "rooting for failure" and "betting against our troops"?

Good point, WaPo, but I'll say this much for the libs – at least they have CONSISTENTLY rooted for failure and bet against the troops. Michael Steele only did it when he stupidly thought he could score a partisan point against Obama.

Ain't politics grand ?

Let me start by saying I agree with several things Obama has done recently – instituting an effort to secure loose nukes is great. Probably the single greatest threat to the USA and the world is a nuke falling into terrorist hands. Obama's move to start offshore oil drilling is a step forward. I supported his surge in Afghanistan (though I'm having second thoughts after Afghan President Hamid Karzai criticized American efforts. We can't possibly succeed without the support of the Afghan government). Obama took a small step forward on gay rights by requiring hospitals to allow patients to designate who can visit them during crucial moments. It no longer has to be a family member. The former policy discriminated against unmarried couples and gay couples who are not allowed to marry, and are therefore not recognized as family. Allowing unmarried and gay partners to visit their loved ones in the hospital is simply the right and humane thing to do. Kudos to the President for changing this longstanding and unfair policy.

But thursday, the President returned to what I termed "full-blown economic retard" mode a couple posts back. At a Democratic fundraiser in Miami, Obama said the following about the tax day Tea Party protests. From the Associated Press:

President Barack Obama said Thursday he's amused by the anti-tax tea party protests that have been taking place around Tax Day. Obama told a fundraiser in Miami that he's cut taxes, contrary to the claims of protesters.

"You would think they'd be saying thank you," he said.

At that, many in the crowd at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts stood and yelled, "Thank you!"

The Democrats at Obama's fundraiser may have bought into this schlock, but anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows better. This was Obama at his worst.

First of all, the Tea Party protests aren't really about current levels of taxation. They are primarily about out-of-control government spending and growth, along with the resulting massive deficits and debt increases. It doesn't take too many brain cells to figure out that higher taxation HAS to follow such fiscal irresponsibility eventually, even if Obama is throwing a populist bone to the taxpayers now. The Democrats who are saying "thank you" to Obama's program of cut taxes/increase spending certainly didn't feel the same way about George W. Bush's same program of cut taxes/increase spending. The Democrats were right about Bush, but they've become incredible hypocrites now that their man is in charge, and in little more than a year in office, their man has increased spending more than Bush ever dreamed. Federal spending in 2011 is scheduled to be nearly a trillion dollars more than it was in 2008. That is astounding, and remember, after that the huge spending increases for ObamaCare start to kick in.

Second, Obama is a tax RAISER, not a tax cutter. He broke his pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making under $200,000 about two weeks after he took office, when he implemented a regressive cigarette tax. Obama's health care reform will implement a slew of new taxes, far more than the TEMPORARY tax cuts he instituted for 95% of Americans last year. Obama's wants to end his middle class tax cuts after 2010. Then he wants to reverse the Bush tax cuts for those making over $200,000. Several of the health care reform taxes will hit the middle class, further violating his pledge not to raise taxes on those making under $200,000 per year. Coming up on Obama's agenda is another huge regressive tax scam known as Cap And Trade, which will drive up everyone's energy costs while doing virtually nothing to decrease CO2 emissions. Obama's economic advisors are contemplating several other tax increases, among them a VAT tax, which would also be regressive.

Yet, Obama wants us to say "thank you" for the temporary tax cuts. I don't think so. The American public has to be smarter than to fall for this bait-and-switch crapola. How our President thinks he can control the economic narrative with such fatuous nonsense is beyond me. Oh wait, I do know how. The mainstream media seldom calls him on his lies. Instead, they are complicit in pushing them. That's how.

On his first trip to Afghanistan, President Obama said the following words to the troops (transcript):

You are part of the finest military in the history of the world, and we are proud of you. And so I want you to know that everybody back home is proud of you. Everybody back home is grateful. And everybody understands the sacrifices that you have made and your families have made to keep America safe and to keep America secure in this vital mission…

So I want you to know, I want every American serving in Afghanistan, military and civilian, to know, whether you’re working the flight line here at Bagram or patrolling a village down in Helmand, whether you’re standing watch at a forward operating base or training our Afghan partners or working with the Afghan government, your services are absolutely necessary, absolutely essential to America’s safety and security. Those folks back home are relying on you.

We can’t forget why we’re here. We did not choose this war. This was not an act of America wanting to expand its influence; of us wanting to meddle in somebody else’s business. We were attacked viciously on 9/11. Thousands of our fellow countrymen and women were killed. And this is the region where the perpetrators of that crime, al Qaeda, still base their leadership.

Plots against our homeland, plots against our allies, plots against the Afghan and Pakistani people are taking place as we speak right here. And if this region slides backwards, if the Taliban retakes this country and al Qaeda can operate with impunity, then more American lives will be at stake. The Afghan people will lose their chance at progress and prosperity. And the world will be significantly less secure.

And as long as I’m your Commander-in-Chief, I am not going to let that happen. That’s why you are here. I’ve made a promise to all of you who serve. I will never send you into harm’s way unless it’s absolutely necessary. I anguish in thinking about the sacrifices that so many of you make. That’s why I promise I will never send you out unless it is necessary…

Our broad mission is clear: We are going to disrupt and dismantle, defeat and destroy al Qaeda and its extremist allies. That is our mission. And to accomplish that goal, our objectives here in Afghanistan are also clear: We’re going to deny al Qaeda safe haven. We’re going to reverse the Taliban’s momentum. We’re going to strengthen the capacity of Afghan security forces and the Afghan government so that they can begin taking responsibility and gain confidence of the Afghan people.

And our strategy includes a military effort that takes the fight to the Taliban while creating the conditions for greater security and a transition to the Afghans; but also a civilian effort that improves the daily lives of the Afghan people, and combats corruption; and a partnership with Pakistan and its people, because we can’t uproot extremists and advance security and opportunity unless we succeed on both sides of the border. Most of you understand that.

Many of the troops that I ordered to Afghanistan have begun to arrive, and more are on the way. And we’ll continue to work with Congress to make sure that you’ve got the equipment that you need, particularly as we complete our drawdown in Iraq. We’re providing more helicopters, we’re providing more intelligence and reconnaissance capabilities, more special operations forces, more armored vehicles that can save lives.

So thanks to you, there’s been progress these last several months. But we know there are going to be some difficult days ahead. There’s going to be setbacks. We face a determined enemy. But we also know this: The United States of America does not quit once it starts on something. (Applause.) You don’t quit, the American armed services does not quit, we keep at it, we persevere, and together with our partners we will prevail. I am absolutely confident of that. (Applause.)

Well…damn. That's exactly what I wanted to hear. I've been listening to dispiriting defeatist rhetoric from liberals for so long that I almost don't know how to act when one actually acts like a real American leader who stands up for this country. This may be Obama's most presidential moment to date. Sure, there was another little swipe at Bush in there, but remember, Obama is seeing Iraq through to the end as well.

Well done, Mr. President. I really hope you mean those words.

1. How can President Obama hold a jobs summit and not invite the Chamber Of Commerce ? That's like holding a football game and forgetting to invite the offense.

2. How can the unemployment rate drop from 10.2% to 10% when 11,000 more jobs were lost in november 2009 ?

3. From 1776 to 1913, the value of the dollar increased by 13%. In 1913, the Federal Reserve was implemented. Since 1913, the value of the dollar has dropped by 92%. Why do we have a Federal Reserve ?

4. Why would the President announce a withdrawal date of july 2011 from a war that is not yet won ?

5. Why would President Obama call the november 2009 jobs report "the best jobs report since december 2007" and talk about White House administration officials hugging each other in joy over the good news, when the november unemployment rate is 10% and the december 2007 unemployment rate was 4.9% ? FYI – the january 2008 unemployment rate was also 4.9%.

6. Why are the extramarital affairs of golfer Tiger Woods a big news story ?

7. If the Federal Reserve prints money out of thin air, backed by nothing, in order to, say, lend $85 billion to AIG, and then AIG pays back that money from profits, isn't the net effect nothing but a devaluation of the dollar ?

8. Isn't a devaluation of the dollar nothing but a hidden tax on the assets of all Americans ?

9. If a citizen continually spends more money than he/she makes, he/she will go bankrupt. How is it any different when the government does the same thing, except that the government will take all the citizens down along with it ?

10. Why would we hand health care over to government control when the part of health care the government does control (Medicare/Medicaid) is already so far in the red ?

11. How can the Obama stimulus possibly be working when it is based upon money borrowed or printed out of thin air, backed by nothing, and is therefore entirely artificial ? (See questions #3, #7, and #8).

12. If question #11 is too confusing, perhaps this will help simplify the matter. Does a man up to his neck in credit card debt improve his financial situation by getting more credit cards ?

13. What is wrong with asking the President of the United States to produce his original birth certificate ?

14. Is there any major Obama policy that is supported by the American people ?

15. Why don't we just put Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in front of a firing squad and save everyone a lot of time and money ?

16. How do tax increases ever help the private sector economy ?

17. Shouldn't there have to be at least one act of Tea Party-related violence (from the Tea Party side) before the media denounces the crazy, violent, extremist Tea Partiers ?

18. On the same subject, why is it considered crazy and extreme to be in favor of fiscal responsibility, liberty, and the U.S. Constitution, as the Tea Partiers are ? What does that say about the state of our country ?

19. On the jobs front, which Obama policies are pro-business ?

20. Why are Democrats now in favor of cutting Medicare, when they've been against Medicare cuts for four decades ?

Though the West Pointers didn't seem overly thrilled with President Obama's Afghanistan strategy speech (as MSNBC windbag Chris Matthews said, Obama was in the "enemy camp,") I thought Obama's speech was pretty good, up to a point. He committed 30,000 more troops to a counterinsurgency strategy to remove the Taliban from the portion of the country they control, in order to stop Al Qaeda from returning and gaining the safe haven they had there prior to the 9/11 attacks. Good. Up to 40% of Afghanistan is either under Taliban control or highly vulnerable, mainly the southeast and Pakistan border region. Obama went on to say the Afghan government needed to beef up it's security forces and take responsibility, because the USA wasn't going to stay in Afghanistan forever. Good. General McChrystal heartily endorses the plan, which we can call The Obama Surge. Good. Obama's strategy is an attempt to reverse years of floundering about as the Taliban presence increased in Afghanistan. Good.

Political opposition to The Obama Surge is split mainly along the usual lines. Conservatives support the Surge, but are wondering why Obama announced an Afghanistan exit date of July 2011 (18 months from now), signaling to the enemy how long they'll have to wait us out in order to succeed. Liberals, on the other hand, are mad about the whole idea of a surge, wishing instead that the USA would just pull all the troops out now, the consequences be damned. Liberals are saying that July 2011 date better be a firm date.

As usual with American wars, conservatives want America to be successful, and liberals want America to fail. For years, we've witnessed Democrats try to undermine the Iraq War. Now, after years of correctly saying Bush took his eye off the ball by going into Iraq, liberals are more than happy to undermine Afghanistan, thereby proving they were never serious about Afghanistan in the first place. So President Obama gets lots of credit here for attempting to live up to his campaign promise of succeeding in Afghanistan, in what Obama termed the "necessary war," and for not merely pandering to his liberal anti-war base. Obama said the July 2011 deadline until troop withdrawal begins was to signal to the Afghans that they had to step up and take responsibility, but it also throws a bone to his base. I think it's Obama's version of split-the-baby. Plus, Obama cabinet members are all saying that our withdrawal is dependent upon conditions on the ground, leaving themselves an out.

In any case, the Obama Surge is not going to be easy to execute, and it's going to be even harder to hold. The Afghanistan-Pakistan border is mountainous and treacherous terrain, and the border itself is little more than a line on a map. There's no border security. The Taliban and Al Qaeda cross back and forth as they wish, which has always been one of the big problems. We'll have the Pakistan army fighting the insurgents from the east, and the America-led NATO forces fighting the insurgents from the west. Both sides have to hold in order to be successful, and ultimately it will have to be the Afghanistan government forces that must hold from the west. They are not close to being able to do that now, with only 170,000 forces trying to manage a country of 30 million people in Afghanistan. A large number of those forces are corrupt, and the area of Afghanistan they'll have to hold is the biggest center of opium production in the world, giving a large incentive for criminal activity in an impoverished country.

Two weeks ago, the President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, said, "We are determined that by the next five years, the Afghan forces are capable of taking the lead in ensuring security and stability across the country."

Five years ??? You better step up the pace, Karzai. Obama says you have 18 months.

Let's get the crazy train rolling at high speed right off the bat with this first quote…

“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize.” – Democratic National Committee communications director Brad Woodhouse (link).

Let me get this straight. After years and years of Democrats attempting to undermine President Bush at every turn in the War On Terror, er, I mean the Overseas Contingency Operation, including attempts to lose the Iraq war, a DNC spokesman now has the nerve to say Republicans have thrown in with the terrorists because some Republicans opined that Obama didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize (which he most assuredly didn't, as Obama himself even said). Wow-freakedy-wow-wow. Words fail me. I literally can't think of a negative adjective strong enough to convey how wrong this remark is. I can't even think of a way to equate an opinion on the Nobel Prize with throwing in with terrorists, but evidently Brad Woodhouse can.

And Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) seems to agree. I expect this stuff from dolts like Keith Olbermann or the other lib-nuts on MSNBC, who routinely compare Republicans to jihadis, but not from Democratic Senators or the DNC.

Also, somebody better hip Woodhouse to the fact that the Obama administration has decided the Taliban isn't our enemy any longer. Or Hamas either, for that matter. I bet that'll do wonders for the morale of our troops who've been fighting against the Taliban and dying in Afghanistan for the last seven years. Acceptance of the Taliban is also a major step backwards for human rights, especially from a President who just won the Nobel Peace Prize here on Planet Orwell. Sigh. Is the world turning on it's ear, or is it just me ?
===
Next up is this very conscientous Democratic Senator, who is fully committed to doing his job:

"I don't expect to actually read the legislative language [of the health care bill] because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I've ever read in my life." –Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE)

Yes, being a Congressman is soooo hard, and now they expect Sen. Carper to read AND understand the legislation he's voting upon ? What's a poor Senator to do ? Study or something ? I presume Carper's state of confusion over the legislation won't prevent him from voting "Yea" on the health care bill. You just don't see integrity like Carper's anymore. On second thought, yes you do, all the time on Capitol Hill, and that's the problem.
===
Now we move on to another patriotic Senator, John Kerry (D-NVA). Here's what Kerry said about cap-and-trade legislation:

"Let me emphasize something very strongly as we begin this discussion. The United States has already this year alone achieved a 6 percent reduction in emissions simply because of the downturn in the economy, so we are effectively saying we need to go another 14 percent."

Yeah, baby ! We're fundamentally transforming America !!! If we can only make this recession a lot worse, and make it last forever, we can help the environment ! And golly gee, if we go into a full-fledged permanent Great Depression II, maybe we can even reach the Kyoto emission standards ! Victory is at hand ! Yes We Can ! Yes We Can ! Yes We Can, Destroy The Economy !!!! C'mon, everybody sing !

"Obama ! mmmm mmmm mmmm."

I can't stand it. Where did I put that hammer ?