The chair of the Republican National Committee finds himself at the center of controversy again, this time for comments he made criticizing President Obama over the war on Afghanistan. They were made at a Connecticut fundraiser, and [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIRmkef2wZo"]captured by a video camera[/ame] that appears to have been hidden.
"Keep in mind ... this was a war of Obama's choosing," Steele, pacing under a red and white canopy, says. "This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."
He continues on to say that Obama "was trying to be cute by half," by "flipping a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan." This would seem to refer to Obama's position on the conflict as a candidate.
"Well, if he's 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?" he said. "Everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan."
In the last four hours, I count nearly two dozen e-mails from the Democratic National Committee about Steele's comments, many rounding up the early coverage. Party spokesman Brad Woodhouse also offers this reaction:
"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," Woodhouse says. "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."
To be sure, Woodhouse correctly alludes to the difficult position Republican officeholders and candidates may find themselves in again, as they will no doubt be asked whether they agree with their party chairman's assessment of the war. Already, a leading conservative voice has called for his resignation.
"Your tenure has of course been marked by gaffes and embarrassments, but I for one have never paid much attention to them, and have never thought they would matter much to the success of the causes and principles we share," Bill Kristol writes at the Weekly Standard. But, "at a time when Gen. Petraeus has just taken over command, when Republicans in Congress are pushing for a clean war funding resolution, when Republicans around the country are doing their best to rally their fellow citizens behind the mission, your comment is more than an embarrassment. It's an affront, both to the honor of the Republican party and to the commitment of the soldiers fighting to accomplish the mission they've been asked to take on by our elected leaders."
It remains to be seen whether Steele can survive this latest controversy. In one respect, the timing is fortuitous since these comments are coming to light as many head out for the long weekend. But it also undercuts the party as they hoped to use the latest jobs report to attack Democrats' handling of the economy.
In the meantime, party spokesman Doug Heye has offered this defense: "The Chairman clearly supports our troops but believes that success of the war effort in Afghanistan requires the ongoing support of the American people. ... Like so many Americans, Chairman Steele wants to hear an explanation from President Obama on what his strategy is for winning the war in Afghanistan."
Democrats certainly face their own divide over the war in Afghanistan. Even the White House famously has struggled internally over what the best strategy should be. But at least today, they can agree that Steele has handed them another golden gaffe to capitalize on in the short term.
UPDATE: The RNC has released a new statement from Steele clarifying his remarks:
"Keep in mind ... this was a war of Obama's choosing," Steele, pacing under a red and white canopy, says. "This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."
He continues on to say that Obama "was trying to be cute by half," by "flipping a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan." This would seem to refer to Obama's position on the conflict as a candidate.
"Well, if he's 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?" he said. "Everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan."
In the last four hours, I count nearly two dozen e-mails from the Democratic National Committee about Steele's comments, many rounding up the early coverage. Party spokesman Brad Woodhouse also offers this reaction:
"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," Woodhouse says. "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."
To be sure, Woodhouse correctly alludes to the difficult position Republican officeholders and candidates may find themselves in again, as they will no doubt be asked whether they agree with their party chairman's assessment of the war. Already, a leading conservative voice has called for his resignation.
"Your tenure has of course been marked by gaffes and embarrassments, but I for one have never paid much attention to them, and have never thought they would matter much to the success of the causes and principles we share," Bill Kristol writes at the Weekly Standard. But, "at a time when Gen. Petraeus has just taken over command, when Republicans in Congress are pushing for a clean war funding resolution, when Republicans around the country are doing their best to rally their fellow citizens behind the mission, your comment is more than an embarrassment. It's an affront, both to the honor of the Republican party and to the commitment of the soldiers fighting to accomplish the mission they've been asked to take on by our elected leaders."
It remains to be seen whether Steele can survive this latest controversy. In one respect, the timing is fortuitous since these comments are coming to light as many head out for the long weekend. But it also undercuts the party as they hoped to use the latest jobs report to attack Democrats' handling of the economy.
In the meantime, party spokesman Doug Heye has offered this defense: "The Chairman clearly supports our troops but believes that success of the war effort in Afghanistan requires the ongoing support of the American people. ... Like so many Americans, Chairman Steele wants to hear an explanation from President Obama on what his strategy is for winning the war in Afghanistan."
Democrats certainly face their own divide over the war in Afghanistan. Even the White House famously has struggled internally over what the best strategy should be. But at least today, they can agree that Steele has handed them another golden gaffe to capitalize on in the short term.
UPDATE: The RNC has released a new statement from Steele clarifying his remarks:
"As we enter the Fourth of July weekend, I proudly remember standing with Maryland National Guardsmen on their way to the Middle East and later stood with the mothers of soldiers lost at war. There is no question that America must win the war on terror. "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.
"As we have learned throughout history, winning a war in Afghanistan is a difficult task. We must also remember that after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, it is also a necessary one. That is why I supported the decision to increase our troop force and, like the entire United States Senate, I support General Petraeus' confirmation. The stakes are too high for us to accept anything but success in Afghanistan." - RNC Chairman Michael Steele
"As we have learned throughout history, winning a war in Afghanistan is a difficult task. We must also remember that after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, it is also a necessary one. That is why I supported the decision to increase our troop force and, like the entire United States Senate, I support General Petraeus' confirmation. The stakes are too high for us to accept anything but success in Afghanistan." - RNC Chairman Michael Steele
