War & Flatulence

Did I once refer to this guy as "the man of Steele"?  Good grief, all Clark Kent ever did to look stupid was wear those big-ass horn-rimmed glasses, add a nasal inflection to his speech cadences, and trip a lot:

I can make a guess at what the Chairman was trying to say, which requires as its context the Af-Pak front as handled since January 20, 2009.  "The war of Obama's choosing" would be the way he's chosen to kinda-sorta fight it in terms of keeping troops there but not have them doing much besides dying bravely but futiley.  Which is another way of saying The L'il Generalissimo green-lighted the mini-Surge in order to buy himself some time and political capital to cover his ass on what he really wanted to do all along - namely, cut & run.

Still begs the question, though: Why didn't Steele just say that?  Minus his special context, his remarks sound nonsensical (Bush invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, a rather obvious and necessary "choice") and puerily partisan (trying to blame The One for a war that (1) he really did inherit and (2) which Steele himself ostensibly supported as recently as six months ago).  Almost as daffy as the Dems sound trying to go supermegahawk on his ass after their recent history vis-a-vie Bush's "war of choice" in Iraq.

Such a brain fart was this malaprop that the RNC's and Steele's own attempts to extricate him from it have been so disconnected as to be outright unresponsive.

Bill Kristol is ready to pull the plug:

You are, I know, a patriot. So I ask you to consider, over this July 4 weekend, doing an act of service for the country you love: Resign as chairman of the Republican party…

Needless to say, the war in Afghanistan was not “a war of Obama’s choosing.” It has been prosecuted by the United States under Presidents Bush and Obama. Republicans have consistently supported the effort. Indeed, as the DNC Communications Director (of all people) has said, your statement “puts [you] at odds with about 100% of the Republican Party.”

And not on a trivial matter. At a time when General 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.

I suspect Kristol won't be the last rightie to bang the drum for the man of Steele to be exiled to Krypton.  But I'd be awfully surprised if the Chairman took the hint.  First, because his string of gaffes is miles long by this time and he's still around; second, because Republican donors have factored in Steele's maleadership and poured their contribution streams into well-led and well-run GOP alternative organizations like the NRCC and RGA; and third, because there'll be a regularly scheduled opportunity to oust him early next year after the midterms anyway.  Why go to extra trouble to get rid of Steele now and create the inevitable "racist conservatives lynch African-American chairman, proving their racist bigoted prejudiceness" distraction as the 2010 enters the home stretch?

Point to ponder: Might Michael Steele not making it to the U.S. Senate in 2006 have been at least a small blessing in disguise after all?