Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Applicants must be willing to receive Medal of Freedom

The war in Iraq is going so "well" and "successes" are just piling up faster than lemmings running off a cliff that the Bush administration is looking to create a war czar. (Emphasis mine)
The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.

At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.

"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.

Hmmm. If things were going well in either Iraq or Afghanistan it is a simple fact that Bush, or Cheney, would be taking all the credit for anything that looked like success. The US already has civilian and military leadership in place for both theatres.

This spells quagmire faster than you can say "fall-guy".

Bush/Cheney aren't looking for a war czar. They're looking for a scapegoat.

Crooks and Liars has more.

BONUS: Pudentilla over at Skippy's has a couple of multiple choice questions on this subject that you must try to answer, here and here.

(Hat tip Canadian Cynic)

No comments: