Do you want to be War Czar? (no spam)

[fable]

Three very prominent 4-star US generals have already turned Bush down.

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said.

Here's the whole story.

One of the least publicized aspects of this whole monumental stinking sludge pile referred to euphemistically by Shrub's administration as "the Iraqi War" is that the senior military has been objecting to the way it was all run from the first. Generals have quit; others have been removed for disagreeing with the political powers-that-be. Many have denounced it publically--not that you'd know, because most of the news sources here in the US are controlled by two or three right-wing tycoons, like Rupert Murdoch.

So do you have what it takes to be War Czar? Will you stand up with a chest full of medals, and parrot whatever you're told to say? Will you take the fall for your masters when you inevitably fail, and the next bunch of well-intentioned kids sent over are killed? Hey, maybe you should check out the benefits package. It might be worth it.

[Vicsun]

You missed the best quote from that article!

Quote:

"Someone needs to tell Steve Hadley that position is filled, it's the commander in chief, unless the decider's become the delegator," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.

Speaking of which, The Onion predicted this would happen two years ago. I think there might be some broad implications of a parody website accurately predicting the government's actions, but I can't quite put my finger on what those implications are.

edit: also, wouldn't warlord be more accurate than czar? I know someone in the White House has a hard-on for naming government officials after ruthless, despotic authority figures, so I'm secretly hoping someone will eventually be nicknamed fuhrer or despot or something. Drug Fuhrer has a certain ring to it, don't you think?

[fable]

Oh, that's cute. Not exactly on topic...but pretty damn good.

Only...it really is on topic in a sense, isn't it? Because Bush is always looking for somebody to act as his bit...er, robot, to implement his policies without question, to nod when asked, to take the fall when all fails. He then stands by them loyally until the outcry is enormous, then he accepts their resignations ruefully, gives them medals of honor and huge sendoffs, just like the former Secretary of Providing Biological Weapons of Mass Destruction to Iraq under Reagan, Donald Rumsfeld. But he's just the must prominent example; FEMA's former chief is another, and Harriet Myers is a third. The list is actually quite long.

I'm absolutely certain he will eventually find his War Czar, and I predict it will be a third rate pencil-pushing 4-star general, bitter at being neglected, who will make whatever devil's bargain he must to lord it over a warzone and Make the US Stand Proud. Well, for at least a month or two, until he goes the way of all Bush catamites, and someone else is sought.

[Moonbiter]

They piss & moan. Together they're a pretty good band. But do they vote? Hell No!!!!!!

[Cuchulain82]

@Viscun

That quote is great. Rahm Emanuel is incredibly quoteable and really, really tough. He came up through the democratic ranks in Chicago and was a legendary fundraiser for the elder Daley. He parlayed that into a high-level position in the Clinton administration.

@Fable

Don't you think this is six years of GWB presidency rearing it's head? I think we're going to be dealing with this stuff for at least another two presidential terms, maybe much longer.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cuchulain82 @Fable Don't you think this is six years of GWB presidency rearing it's head? I think we're going to be dealing with this stuff for at least another two presidential terms, maybe much longer.

You mean Iraq, or in general? Because Iraq, certainly. In general, I would say the problems left by the neo-cons' assault on the USian federal government from Reagan and through Shrub will be with us for generations to come. Renewed federal secrecy. The stripping of research into alternative fuel sources (so important under the Carter administration). The politicizing of the Judicial branch. Sweeping nepotism and corruption on a scale that hasn't been seen since the Harding years. A prostrate media echoing the administration line. Assaults, often successful, on the basic laws of the land, including habeus corpus. The establishment of a monolithic, mammoth new bureau, shrouded in secrecy, that can do whatever it wants. Kidnapping, torture and detention without limits authorized.

You can't roll that back in 8 years. For one thing, politicians aren't going to allow much of this to go if they can play the demagogue card off opponents, and claim much of it is necessary "for the defense of the nation."

And that doesn't even begin to touch the economic pit that's yawning before us.

But at this moment, Bush and his colleagues don't even realize we have a problem, much less being willing to discuss how to deal with it. Like all good zealots, they know that the only course worth following is the one that leads to their star. All else may be sacrificed.

At least much of the top brass isn't with this, as the article linked at the top hints. But then, this has always been the case. It's just not been reported much in the past.

[Magrus]

Unsurprising. I've been hearing from military personnel, former and present, who have been discussing how to change things, and not in a peaceful way. The fact that high ranking officers are giving the head of state the proverbial finger speaks volumes given all of that. What the government doesn't realize, is the folks who are joining the army these days aren't doing so for the reasons they think they are any longer. I'm giddy with anticipation to see what happens in the next few years due to these kinds of outlooks on things from the trained murderers in our midst who are very disgruntled.

[Vicsun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonbiter They piss & moan. Together they're a pretty good band. But do they vote? Hell No!!!!!!

I thought you'd end your post with "they fight crime!"

edit: I can't vote in American elections because I'm not an American. Can I still piss and moan, though?

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicsun edit: I can't vote in American elections because I'm not an American. Can I still piss and moan, though?

Of course. You'd have more cred if you did it about Shrub back in 2000, but there's an astonishing plethora of material that shows self-delusion, paranoia, law-breaking, bad faith, bullying, horrific judgement, complete self-interest, or merely incompetence. No one can embrace it all. Feel free to dig in.

But to stay on subject (which we should)--although the supine media has allowed this to slip completely off their radar, Bush hasn't found a taker, yet. Opinions are divided over whether the Iraqi invasion was ever "winnable," in part because it depends on your definition of what winning means. Bush declared it won in a famous speech in Baghdad as soon as the capitol was overwhelmed with troops. Most sane people agree it wasn't won then, however you fiddle with the word, and that Bush and his cronies set an exemplary path of croneyism, looting, and stupidity in handling it since then. So if the war was ever winnable, by any standards, at least 70% of USians (according to three separate, well-respected polls this past week) feel it has been lost beyond recovery. No sane 4-star general wants to tarnish their record by taking over the management of this mess. Again: I think only a bitter retiree would be willing to give it a go. We'll see.