|
Assemblyman backs Steele
From Steven Greenhut: Assemblyman Chris Norby, R-Fullerton, has weighed in on the latest controversy over Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, who has gotten himself into some hot water with GOP war hawks over a sensible statement Steele made about Afghanistan. Said Steele: “If he [Obama] is such a student of history, has he not understood the one thing you don’t do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? Everyone who has tried over a thousand years has failed and there are reasons for that.” This is obvious stuff. There’s nothing the slightest bit wrong about that statement — and it’s something old-school conservatives and libertarians have long understood. Norby, who comes from the small-”l” wing of the Republican Party, wrote a blog post for Friends for Fullerton’s Future making this point: “It is Obama who decided to send an additional 30,000 ground troops. Why should Republicans blindly support this vague and open-ended commitment? Would Reagan have done so? He wisely decided against a similar quagmire in Lebanon, which is far smaller than Afghanistan. Bush Sr. was equally prudent in his use of ground forces only for clear and achievable objectives.” Ironically, many Republicans are now closely allied with our nation-building liberal president. I still recall when George W. Bush called for a “humbler” foreign policy in his debate with Al Gore. That was a slap at the Clinton administration’s Wilsonian nation-building schemes. It’s why I voted for Bush in 2000. Of course, Bush became the biggest Wilsonian after 9/11 and the GOP has mostly stayed on board the Clinton path. But some Republicans echo the old limited-government, limited-intervention worldview. It’s nice to see one of them speak out for a change. Norby serves in the state Assembly, of course, but it is his party and Steele is his chairman, so this was a wholly appropriate thing to do.
Comments(5) |
|
May 21, 2012
Amazing. I haven’t seen so much revisionist history since Glenn Beck blogged alone.
The facts are these:
1. 9/ll happened. The American people demanded that we take the fight to bin Laden and his terrorists.
2. President Bush sent troops to Afghanistan as the War on Terror began.
3. Unfortunately, President Bush never committed the resources needed to capture or kill bin Laden. Instead, he wasted billions of dollars and thousands of American lives on a war for oil and revenge in iraq, a war that was not aimed at the real terrorists who attacked us.
4. President Obama inherited both wars. He correctly saw that the war on terror needed to be fought in Afghanistan, NOT Iraq. But now that he is trying to fight a war that might actually defeat the terrorists, sunshine patriots like Steels and Norby go on the attack.
Where the hell were they from 2001 to 2008? Could it be they didn’t speak out because a Repub was in the White House?
It is so damn easy to preach limited government and limited foreign involvement when you’re not in charge of either.
Oh right … maybe if the U.S. government sends as many troops as the Russians sent, that will subdue Afghanistan. Just some more “resources” and that will do the trick and catch them terrorists — never mind how many American troops or Afghan civilians get killed in the process! I know I opposed the war in my newspaper column from the start even though I had supported Bush for president. But it appears that you support the war now that your guy is in charge — even though Obama is breaking his own campaign promises. I don’t know much about Steele, but Norby has never been a partisan Republican war supporter.
I supported going after the terrorists in 2001 and I support it today.
Which war did you oppose: Afghanistan or Iraq? Please don’t equate the two. Your guy squandered billions of dollars and American lives that could have been better used wiping out bin Laden and his buddies.
There’s also a big difference between what the Russians did in Afghanistan–subjegate the people–and what we’re trying to do. Dare I say it–nation-build. That doesn’t mean we’ll win it, but we’ve got a lot better chance President Obama’s way than just going in and taking over–like the Russians, or ignoring the threat altogher–like your guy.
There are some Republicans who have been consistent on this stuff. You may be one of them. If so, congratulations.
But please don’t start with the “breaking his campaign promises” crap. Prsident Obama was given one of the worst hands in U.S. history: two wars, the greatest economic collapse since the Depression, and a political opposition that has refused any cooperation and compromise. Your guy had a nice little honeymoon prior to 9/11. Obama’s lasted about a week.
No he hasn’t kept all his promises or solved all our problems. But given all that he’s faced, he’s hung in there.
I opposed Iraq. Bill O’Reilly called me a moron on his show regarding my position! Don’t call Bush my guy. I voted for him, but was a persistent critic his entire administration. It’s in my columns. I voted for Obama. Does that make him my guy now even though it was a protest vote? Obama is a huge disaster. Sure, he was dealt a bad hand and he is making it worse through crony capitalism/socialism. Actually, he’s not much different from Bush. Neither party speaks to my views and the Libertarian Party is ineffective and usually ridiculous. We can call it nation-building or humanitarian or whatever, but we are still occupying another country, killing lots of people and trying to install a government in a world of clans and non-government control. It is not going to go any better than what the Russians did. We should get out, just as Obama promised during the campaign. I agree with you on Iraq, though.
Thanks, Steve. Look at it this way, if O’Reilly calls you a moron, you must be doing something right! Now you just need Rush Limbaugh to “hope you fail” and you’ll be in hog heaven.