|
We already have a "war czar" - he's called the President.
How is it that George Bush wants to be the "commander-in-chief" and be a "war President" but believes that he needs a "war czar"?
Does that not stretch credulity?
As Jon Stewart basically said last night, "war czar" is Russian for "someone to fall on my sword". The "war czar" will be responsible for taking the blame while George Bush gets to pretend that nothing is his fault.
Any time I've ever heard the word "czar" uttered by our government what it has meant is that the people in charge don't have a damned clue how to deal with a problem so they choose to isolate the responsibility to one guy who gets to take the hit when the problem still isn't fixed.
Every general asked to serve as "war czar" so far has declined because they aren't as dumb as Bush thinks they are.
How long ago did we get a "drug war czar"?
Have we "won" the "war on drugs" yet?
We even created a czar in the form of director of "homeland security" after 9/11 to give Bush someone to blame if it ever happened again. That clearly didn't work given Hurricane Katrina. In reality FEWER bureaucratic layers are needed between the field and the Oval Office, not more and that's what we learned from the Presidents failures during Hurricane Katrina.
Any time we declare a "war" on an abstract noun - poverty, energy, drugs, or terrorism - we've never really succeeded because you can't. How do you make an abstract noun "surrender"? You have to DECLARE war and war should only be declared on real world entities, not abstract ideas.
Congress has not authorized any new "war on terror czars" and would have to do so under its authority to regulate the military.
The President does not get a stunt double to take the blame for HIS malfeasance and incompetence.
Either BE the leader you think you are Mr. President, or resign.
Doug D. Orlando, FL
|