Ron Paul Praises Embattled RNC Chief Michael Steele For 'Leadership' On Afghanistan

The Sunday shows on this July Fourth weekend were littered with conservative figures wringing their hands over the latest, confounding comments from RNC Chairman Michael Steele, who recently called Afghanistan an un-winnable war of Obama's choosing.

But with neoconservatives Bill Kristol and Dan Senor as well as Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) all, to one extent or another, taking Steele to the mat, at least one member of the GOP was praising his boldness and clarity.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) the beloved libertarian, former presidential candidate and longtime skeptic of foreign military entanglements, put out a statement on Sunday congratulating Steele for having the courage to, as he put it, tell the truth on the Afghan war:

I would like to congratulate Michael Steele for his leadership on one of the most important issues of today. He is absolutely right: Afghanistan is now Obama's war. During the 2008 campaign, Obama was out in front in insisting that more troops be sent to Afghanistan. Obama called for expanding the war even as he pretended to be a peace candidate.

Michael Steele should not resign. Smart policies make smart politics. He is guiding the party in the right direction and we are on the verge of victory this fall. Chairman Steele should not back off. He is giving the country, especially young people, hope as he speaks truth about this war.

I have to ask myself, what is the agenda of the harsh critics demanding this resignation? Why do they support Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama's war?

The American people are sick and tired spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year, draining our economy and straining our military. Michael Steele has it right and Republicans should stick by him.

Paul's statement, of course, doesn't take into consideration that Steele and the RNC have put out at least two separate statements clarifying his remark -- essentially walking it back. If he's congratulating Steele for speaking truth to power, he's roughly two days late.

But the broader implication of Paul's statement is that it illustrates a skepticism of the Afghanistan war that isn't necessarily confined within a tidy ideological spectrum. The anti-war sentiment among Democrats led roughly two-thirds of the House caucus to vote in favor of a timeline for a military withdrawal from that war last week. Paul, certainly, isn't the most mainstream member of the Republican Party. But his cynicism about the war mission is shared by some influential conservative figures, primarily pundits, such as George Will and Joe Scarborough.

Comments

[PWM]

05:25 PM on 07/19/2010

Ron Paul's record. Amazing

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

Some of his votes:
Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on monitoring TARP funds to ensure more mortgage relief. (Jan 2009)
Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations. (Dec 2007)
Gender-equal pay violates idea of voluntary contract. (Dec 1987)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Guarantee parity for home school diplomas. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Property rights are the foundation of all rights. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on supporting democratic institutions in Pakistan. (Jun 2009)
The “living Constitution” is the death of democracy. (Apr 2008)
Voted NO on giving mental health full equity with physical health. (Mar 2008)
Minimum wage takes away opportunities, especially for blacks. (Sep 2007)

[Riley Pacheco]

12:26 AM on 07/09/2010

AND he is going to be in "Bruno 2"

[freebell]

07:49 PM on 07/06/2010

I'm not sure yet what the correct thing to do is with the war in Afghanistan. However, regarding Ron Paul, I have a lot of respect for him. I'm very knowledgeable about the subject of toxic drugs, both illegal drugs (marijuana, etc.) and legal drugs (psychiatric drugs, etc.). Ron Paul seems to be only one of very few politicians who has it right and who is using common sense in this matter. Alot of the other politicians seem to think that the government owns our bodies.

[kareemachan]

02:29 PM on 07/06/2010

Can't Randy get *anything* right?

[kareemachan]

02:33 PM on 07/06/2010

Sorry, I typed Randy instead of Ronny out of habit, as I've been intrigued with his underground "fence" thing lately.

[Seth Blystone]

01:56 PM on 07/06/2010

Dr. Paul, you're sadly out of touch.
Sure, Afghanistan is *now* Obama's war. That wasn't what Steele said.
The sensible thing to do is to try to finish what we started in Afghanistan; what the former president couldn't finish.

Or would you prefer that we pull our troops out overnight, further destabilizing the country we invaded nearly a decade ago?

Doesn't sound very responsible to me.

I am not a fan of the war in Afghanistan by any means, but it should have been over a long time ago. Had our president at the time left his focus there and not gotten our country involved in Iraq, we could have finished what we started. In 2006 we could potentially have been where we stand now, but without the years and billions of dollars wasted.

I applaud your efforts to cut Pentagon spending, but throwing support to Steele right now is poor form and does not bolster your stance on budget cuts for defense. Clearly it is Pelosi's and Obama's war to you, because this strong language was NOWHERE during the Bush presidency.

For shame, Dr. Paul. For shame.

[Pyrum]

08:44 PM on 07/06/2010

Dr. Paul himself had plenty of strong language during the Bush presidency. Didn't you watch the republican debates?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX-DIpkJRDY The question he fields here about about Iraq, but he touches on Afghanistan toward the end of his answer, so watch the whole clip.

[SLToddard]

08:15 PM on 07/08/2010

Uh, is this a joke? There is no war opponent in congress that has been more vocal, more consistent and more honorable in their opposition to Iraq and Afghanistan. None. And yes Afghanistan is Obama's war now - like "conservative" Republicans who supported Bush, the Democrats have voted in a warmongering imperialist, and will look past the blood on his hands, the Constitution under his feet and the untried suspects languishing in his secret gulags and vote him in again - because the opposition to "Bush's War" was, for most on the left, nothing more than a cheap tactic.

Obama's re-election will prove this beyond any doubt.

[JavaManiac]

01:14 PM on 07/06/2010

The GOP constantly trying to stick Obama with Bush's mis-steps.

The "War on Terr0r" was justified and then Bush and Cheney pretended to be fighting it while they went after Saddam instead.

Bush and Cheney embroiled themselves in Afghanistan instead of refocusing on Al Qaeda and the Taliban and chasing them down all over the world.

Bush and Cheney refused to improve relations with Pakistan and let the Al Qaeda powers move back and forth across their border.

Bush and Cheney were disasters for America and now we have to finish this.

Move Afghanistan to as stable as possible so the Taliban and Al Qaeda cannot return and set up in power.

Thank you President Obama

[berrycooda]

12:57 PM on 07/06/2010

To date.....1000 American troops and the number is climbing.

Bush fought the Iraq war which is getting somewhat stabilized now.
He didn't have that many troops in Afghanistan because
Bin Laden wasn't supposed to be there.
Face the facts people...2009 is when Obama ordered more troops to Afghanistan and the beat goes on.

Some people are trying to be so politically correct.
Maybe because of election time coming up and nobody
wants to say anything ... right or wrong...because they
don't really know which side to root for.
Time for the Democrats to own up to the fact that they didn't inherit all the ill effects going on today.
Clinton signed NAFTA in the 90's and gave China most favored nation status and the manufacturing base in
America has been in "exodus" ever since.
So, you might say that Bush inherited that.
Cut some pork in Washington and give the "troops" what they need. They didn't choose to go to another country and fight unknown terrorist groups. They do as they are sent.

Get that war over with and spend the money on a strong
Military here in America. We are going to need it if we
keep turning a blind eye to what is happening here in the U.S.

[pomegrante]

12:31 PM on 07/06/2010

Galen411, fanned. Thankyou for your excellent post.
Wake up people, the corporate masters want to keep you in the matrix...

[BuckJ]

02:44 PM on 07/06/2010

The corporate masters want to DNA test me.

Ron Paul wants to let them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrimination_Act

His mouth isn't always very friendly to corporations. His vote often is.

[PWM]

05:28 PM on 07/19/2010

In Ron's world view property rights trump all other rights.

[pomegrante]

12:19 PM on 07/06/2010

Wow, Ron Paul had the audacity to state the truth over the wknd and because he has an R by his name, he is being villified. I thought the Dem party was antiwar? Hey people SEE through the divide.


Bush/neocons/Iraq, (unfortunately)Obama/neolibs/Afghanistan = both corporate owned.

[kareemachan]

02:31 PM on 07/06/2010

You didn't bother to actually read the article, did you? Thought not.

[Matt Wilstein]

11:41 AM on 07/06/2010

Jon Stewart interviews the Michael Steele puppet about Afghanistan:
http://bit.ly/aC2OvH

[kmichal456]

11:06 AM on 07/06/2010

Here is the truth.
If we were to elect Ron Paul in 2012 and he did not end wars, then we might as well all join the army because no one else has the principles to do that.
Paul is the only hope...I don't think even Kucinich would do it.

[Ergon]

12:09 PM on 07/06/2010

If the GOP had half a brain, which I wish they had, they'd nominate Ron Paul.

[Ergon]

10:49 AM on 07/06/2010

I posted an opinion poll a while ago that showed that in a hypothetical Ron Paul/Barack Obama matchup the majority would vote for Ron Paul in 2012.
A notion that gives GOP AND DEM shills the shivers.

[Galen411]

11:26 AM on 07/06/2010

I think we all know by now which one would back up what they promise. The only one consistent for years and years. The one who is not a party icon and tool. No half truths and half steppin!

[BuckJ]

03:00 PM on 07/06/2010

I'd be ecstatic if Paul won the Republican nomination. Not only would Obama win re-election in a landslide, Republicans in Congress would have to answer questions about whether or not they supported Paul on this topic or that. Some would lose seats who otherwise wouldn't have, and others would have to plainly state they wouldn't, and recognize that the people don't want, to get rid of the Department of Education or SS or Medicare. They would have to go on the record as to whether or not they agree with Paul that the Constitution doesn't protect privacy.

Then there's the Truther stuff, the newsletters, questions of Christian Dominionism. It would be a disaster of Biblical proportions for the Republican Party.

Yes, please do nominate him.

[Pyrum]

08:49 PM on 07/06/2010

I wouldn't be sure of an Obama win, much less an Obama landslide, in 2012 if Ron Paul became the republican nominee. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, Obama was ahead of Ron Paul by only one percentage point: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41
But, it's just a hypothetical, because Ron Paul will never be the republican presidential nominee, anyway.

[Galen411]

10:35 AM on 07/06/2010

I can't believe the ignorant comments about Ron Paul on this article. The people on this thread who are trashing Ron Paul are not only disingenuous but are most likely the GOP or DNC trolls. They always try to discredit him with name calling. Completely Sophomoric tools.
What doesn't make sense about ending the war when the nation is broke and we have the most unemployed people since the depression. You tools can't keep spinning this like this and Ron Paul don't make sense anymore. People have to stop being tools and start thinking for yourselves. Then Ron Paul makes sense here and his ideas will be the main stream ideals coming up soon because nobody else makes any logical sense anymore.
Ron Paul has always been the anti war voice since the beginning of the wars. Both the DNC and the GOP are to blame for this ongoing wars and they are part of the problem. Just because his son Rand is a little shady, these trolls think they can trash Ron Paul and not even know a thing about him. Then they try to put him in the same boat as the Neo-Thugs, what a joke!
Why had Ron Paul been the only anti war candidate?
Why are pundits from both sides trying to trash him for speaking common sense.
Nobody who has common sense wants these wars any more and who is actually middle class, because we are the ones hurting in this economy.

[MetalCanuck]

10:44 AM on 07/06/2010

I know what you mean, its real frustrating the stupidity.

[BuckJ]

02:42 PM on 07/06/2010

"Ron Paul has always been the anti war voice since the beginning of the wars."

One more time: Paul voted emergency powers to the President to go into Afghanistan.

By the way, what would Ron Paul do for the unemployed exactly? I haven't looked up his votes, but I'd be surprised if he didn't vote against the UI extensions each time.

[Pyrum]

09:00 PM on 07/06/2010

Yes, and once Bush stopped going after bin Laden, Ron Paul completely dropped his support for the war in Afghanistan and expressed remorse for his vote.

[Clevelandinwi]

07:33 AM on 07/06/2010

Do you think there is a decent human being that dandyrandypaul might praise some day?

[Hard2kill]

06:27 AM on 07/06/2010

Is Paul a slow thinker? I am wondering because I noticed several times that he always gives reaction late...

[Pyrum]

11:04 AM on 07/06/2010

You'll see that often in news interviews, because there's a delay in the feed that causes the interviewee to hear the question a few seconds later than those watching the interviewer on
T.V. hear it.