i meant to, but something held me back....it must have been Little Paul's psychic power

I'm trying to figure Nemmy's criteria

wrong cuff on her jeans?  bad mix of eyeliner?

Italy just rammed through a cap on non-EU players in Serie A.

for being such whiny assholes I call on the US govt to file a WTO complaint

think these guys can take Germany?

thinks nobody does it like Sara Lee

good beer is a social right

K so einstein has another job already so this proves 3 things

1 we clearly do not see his "game face" on these forums

2 I picked the wrong damn career for a 3rd time

3 if he'd fallen back on his "rights" he MIGHT be getting monthly payments this week, but probably not

why? the Dutch only managed to score once in that half, the Brazilians not at all, only one Brazilian got a red card

not really a blowout or collapse

I've seen Raiders games that the Raiders would have lost if the other team sat on the bench the 4th quarter

this was no blowout

and you were arguing the opposite view after the England-US 1-1 tie

Michael Steele speaks truth to power
I'm not really sure what to make of this video that has just surfaced of Michael Steele at a fundraiser in Connecticut talking about the Afghanistan war.

It's unequivocal: Steele says that the war was one of Obama's choosing, that we shouldn't be there, and -- crucially -- that history teaches us it's probably a lost cause. That puts him at odds with the entire GOP and many Dems. It's the must-watch video of the morning:

Steele starts off with a standard GOP talking point: That Stanley McChrystal's barbed comments about members of the administration show "frustration" on the part of military leaders towards Obama. But then he seems to veer off in an odd direction:

"Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."...

"It was the president who was trying to be cute by half by flipping a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan. 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? All right, because 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."

Let me have a stab at guessing what happened here. I say Steele initially meant to say that the Afghan war wasn't a war of our choosing because we were attacked on September 11th, forcing us to invade. But that came out all wrong because he garbled it by mixing it with an attack on Obama.

Next, Steele tried to attack Obama by pointing out that during the campaign he insulated himself against charges that he's a dove by calling for a ramp up in Afghanistan. Fair enough. But then he compounded the mess by slipping into a kind of auto-pilot mode where he just started criticizing the Afghan war as a disaster and unwinnable because it's now Obama's war. Result: Steele said that Obama chose this war, that we shouldn't be there, and we now can't win.

Anyone got a better explanation?

UPDATE, 10:44 a.m.: RNC spokesman Doug Heye clarifies:

The Chairman clearly supports our troops but believes that success of the war effort in Afghanistan requires the ongoing support of the American people.

The responsibility for building and maintaining that strategy falls squarely on the shoulders of the President. 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. The Petraeus hearings were an opportunity - a missed opportunity - to do that. Instead, all we hear from the President is criticism of his predecessor for doing exactly the same thing.

At the same time, Congress must stop playing politics with the war and provide the funding our troops need to win and come home.

Michael Steele clarifies again: Yes, we must win
In a mark of just how serious a threat Michael Steele's Afghanistan comments pose to his tenure as RNC chair, he has just released a statement in his own words trying to clean up the mess -- the second of the day, after an earlier one from a spokesman. Steele:

"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."

This appears designed to address the two most controversial aspects of Steele's earlier assertions: His suggestion that we shouldn't be in Afghanistan, and his claim that history shows we're all but certain to lose.

To the first, he says: "There is no question that America must win the war on terror," adding that we must win in Afghanistan "for the sake of the security of the free world."

To the second, he says: The war is indeed "difficult" but "necessary."

It seems unlikely that this will quiet calls among conservatives for his resignation, though. His earlier statement is on video. He dramatically undercut the entire case for an open-ended presence in Afghanistan, just when conservatives are working hard to push the administration towards dropping talk of a drawdown timetable.

And the magnitude of this political screw-up (at least in the context of GOP politics) is so large that it's the final straw after a long string of more forgiveable gaffes -- incontrovertible proof (to Republicans and conservatives) that he doesn't belong in the job.

As one Republican emailed me when I asked for a reaction to the whole mess: "What can you say?"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/

damn you sir! you will try

dont be too sure they'll get past Argentina, they lost to Serbia

wow I was just kidding about giving Melo asylum, maybe you better

http://g.sports.yahoo.com/soccer/world-cup/news/felipe-melo-sent-off-v-netherlands--fbintl_reu-worlddutchbrazilredcard.html

look at all the "RIP Melo" posts

I hope the Netherlands gives Melo asylum! D'OH