Sanding our assholes with 150 grit. Slowly. Lovingly.

So what is a "War Czar"?

I resent the use of the term czar. We had a revolution over that a while back.
Permalink war lenin 
April 14th, 2007 2:39pm
You should watch the video - they address that issue.
Permalink Send private email Philo 
April 14th, 2007 2:58pm
Wasn't Rumsfeld the War Czar before? And the leftists demanded his removal? Now leftists like Stewart claim Bush never even thought to have someone in charge of war strategy until 2007. That's a disingenuous argument.

Stewart used to be funny before he just became a cretinous mouthpiece for the DNC.
Permalink Practical Economist 
April 14th, 2007 3:02pm
PE

try to remember it's comedy not political policy
Permalink wrong boy 
April 14th, 2007 3:35pm
It's both.
Permalink Colm 
April 14th, 2007 3:36pm
Stewart is only too happy to attack anyone that acts stupid.

It's not his fault that the RNC & the White House give him so much material he has to fight to cram the best bits into thirty minutes.
Permalink Send private email Philo 
April 14th, 2007 4:13pm
A "war czar" is basically the president. bush wants someone, anyone, else to be "responsible" so that he and his apologists can pretend that they didn't lose the wargasm. You remember, it was "mission accomplished" in 2003 and "we'll be in and out in 6 months." The bushistas want to pretend very very hard that "they were winning until that other guy took over" which is why they throw temper tantrums at any talk of withdrawal. Dodging responsiblity is more imporatant than anything else, therefore more good money has to be thrown after bad, and more Americans and Iraqis have to die, so that king bush can pretend to be in charge.

I find it funny that one of the 3 that already said "no" was the alleged architect of "the surge."
Permalink Peter 
April 14th, 2007 4:18pm
I also find it interesting that while GWB is railing at Congress that he is the Commander in Chief and they have no right to impinge on his executive powers, he's looking for someone to hand them to.
Permalink Send private email Philo 
April 14th, 2007 4:31pm
finding someone competent and experienced to oversee both wars is _exactly_ the right thing to do in this situation.  actually, it was exactly the right thing to do about 4 years ago, but hey.


Im also not the slightest bit surprised no one wants the job, the reason is that no one believes they can work with the bush administration, regardless of how honest the administration is about wanting to work with them.


seriously, this is the first good decision that bush has made regarding the war in years.
Permalink Send private email zestyZucchini 
April 14th, 2007 5:39pm
couldn't the sec. of defense do this?
Permalink  
April 14th, 2007 5:52pm
> Wasn't Rumsfeld the War Czar before?

Evidence?

[Practical Economist] used to be funny before he just became a cretinous mouthpiece for the [R]NC.
Permalink Send private email Сергей РахманиноB 
April 14th, 2007 7:07pm
> [Practical Economist] used to be funny?

link?
Permalink  
April 14th, 2007 8:03pm
I meant "too look at."
Permalink Send private email Сергей РахманиноB 
April 14th, 2007 8:17pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: April, 2007 Other topics: April, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics