Read time: 3 minutes

Lindsey Graham: Let's Not "Rumsfeld Afghanistan"

Ah, you've got to love these war mongering Republicans like Lindsey Graham, huh? Never found a war they didn't like. Not that I can say much better ab
Views:

Ah, you've got to love these war mongering Republicans like Lindsey Graham, huh? Never found a war they didn't like. Not that I can say much better about way too many Democrats. Domestic spending to fix health care...the horror! We can't afford that. Money to go blow up some brown people on the other side of the world, hey, let those money coffers flow. We've got to stay safe from those turrists don't you know.

As The Political Carnival noted, Lindsey Graham just turned Don Rumsfeld's name into a verb. It's always so nice to see them admit screw ups after they've allowed America to go blow up both Iraq and Afghanistan. We didn't have any business invading either country IMO.

Schieffer: Sen. Graham, what about that? What about when we put our eye back on that area along the border? What's going to need to be done there, and how far do you think Congress is going to be willing to go?

Graham: Well, your question was what would you, what would Congress do if the President said we need more troops in Afghanistan. I'm one Republican that would support more troops in Afghanistan. I do believe, quite Frankly, I'll be shocked if more troops are not requested by our commanders. Afghanistan has deteriorated . In July of last year the President said, when he was a candidate for office that Afghanistan, not Iraq was the central battle in the war on terror.

I disagreed then because Iraq was hanging in the balance. Iraq is more stable. The President is right. Afghanistan is now the central battle front on the war on terror. That means more of everything. More troops, more political engagement, more economic engagement. Carl is right, our NATO allies need to send more troops. The Afghan army being doubled would be a $20 billion appropriation over five years.

America is now paying 90% of the Afghan army. NATO contributed $100 million when Gates passed the hat to help pay for the Afghan army, so I would urge our NATO allies to submit more troops, more funding and I'll be shocked if more troops are not needed. We must secure Afghanistan, and it is not secure now because we don't have enough troops.

Schieffer: Well, do you have any indication that our NATO allies are going to say anything more than "Oh it's a great idea, I'll be happy to continue holding your hat, but we're not going to help you much"? What do we do after that?

Graham: Well, we have to get it right. We urge our, you know, the President has a lot of political capital throughout the world. He's come up with a new engagement strategy. Hopefully they will reward the President by helping him. But we've got to do it no matter what NATO does because we've got to make sure Afghanistan is secure for all the reasons that Carl said.

If we go, if Afghanistan becomes a chaotic situation, it affects Pakistan, so we're going to need more of everything. My message to my Democratic colleagues is that we made mistakes in Iraq. Let's not Rumsfeld Afghanistan. Let's not do this thing on the cheap.

And about that political capital Lindsey. I thought President Obama was just a celebrity that likes palling around with those terrorists? You know Rush Limbaugh isn't going to like you saying that the rest of the world might actually like him, and that there is some good will towards the United States now that we've got Bush out of there.

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service (revised 3/17/2016) for information on our posting policy.