16 May 2007
A war-czar?
Could somebody explain to me (and the the writer of this article), in little-bitty words, what this man is supposed to do? I mean, I really don't get it. He's not in charge of Centcom. He's not the chair of the joint chiefs. He's not the secretary of defense. He's not the national security advisor to the president. He's not the president. What the hell is he?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
We've always had a War Czar. We just used to call him 'Commander in Chief.'
We need a War Czar because someone has to be responsible for the war, and clearly the CinC ain't cutting it.
If only there were some way we could replace the Commander in Chief...
So why isn't this being treated as an admission of incompetence by Dear and Glorious Leader? Where is the outrage of the Congressional Democrats at delegation of specific Constitutional authority?
ITMFA
I believe it's targeted at Alberto Gonzalez currently. :)
Seriously, it's an obscure argument to make to the public. That's why they've done nothing, except rhetoric like this. It won't help you, so why bother? It's the same pragmatic approach that prevents them from filing perfectly justified articles of impeachment.
Post a Comment