I saw yet another report that the White House is looking for a "War Czar" to coordinate the US government management of the war. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070506/ap_on_go_pr_wh/war_czar
Um, isn't that what we have a National Security Council for? Supposedly the point of this position is to cut through the red tape, but how does adding another layer of bueracracy help cut through red tape, especially when this guy will apparently be outside the chain of command.
Even the Heritage foundation thinks it's a loopy idea. Lord help us.
Thought?
2007-05-06 14:50:05 · 8 answers · asked by Chance20_m 5 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
We've had a drug czar, who was accused of being ineffective; a terrorism czar, Clarke, who was demoted by Bush and even though he's worked for numerous Republican presidents, says Bush dropped the ball on terrorism; and now Bush wants to create a "war czar"? How many czars do we need to run this country?
Either Bush picks inept people to run the show, like his staff dealing with Katrina or he refuses to listen to the competent people he has running the show, and after a while they leave, like Colin Powell or are asked to go since they aren't "team players". Which one will the "war czar" be?
I don't have much hope of a competent person being willing to take such a role, since it's obviously a hopeless task. And the military doesn't seem to keen on it either...
2007-05-06 15:37:07 · answer #1 · answered by edith clarke 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Vietnam War was not heavily supported, what was the result? The Gulf War was heavily supported, what was the result? It's not just about public opinion back home but on the battlefield. Do you think US troops felt great in Iraq in 2007 when every other Iraqi wanted them to die? Do you think they might feel better in Afghanistan knowing 7/10 Afghans support them? I don't know, I'm a civillian, but I'd imagine they would feel great knowing that the people back home and in Afghanistan support them.The Taliban would be further demoralized knowing 9/10 of the the people don't want them back in power. The truth also wins wars, remember Mai Lai in Vietnam? The massecre of Vietnamese people in a village? That killed public opinion really badly and questioned the draft, the quality of troops at the time etc. When the truth got out, it was a major blow in public opinion in Vietnam and the US.
2016-05-17 06:51:47 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
More proof that G.W. is not a real conservative. He's actually the worse of both worlds. A bueracratic, big spender like many Dems & a supporter of the "morality police" like some of the Republicans.
I'm more of a libertarian, myself.
Folks, Vote in the primaries or Nov. '08 we will be stuck with choosing between two idiots again.
2007-05-06 15:29:06 · answer #3 · answered by Smart Kat 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush needing war czar shows how ineffective his leadership has been on the war in Iraq. Why not chose the one guy who help create the mess Donald Rumsfelt.
2007-05-07 00:57:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We've had a 'drug czar' who accomplished nothing. The 'security czar' at that 'crack' Department of Homeland Security has done nothing but piss away billions of taxpayers' dollars. Why do we need a 'war czar'?
I thought we had a Commander-In-Chief who was in charge of our military and our 'wars'!!! -RKO- 05/06/07
2007-05-06 16:17:21 · answer #5 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That was just something leaked to the press from George's conservetor at the Federal Care Home. Please take his babbling with a grain of salt. Poor guy's hardly lucid these days.
2007-05-06 16:40:03 · answer #6 · answered by nothing 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The name sucks.. but the position sounds like it could be beneficial.
2007-05-06 14:58:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a dumb idea.
2007-05-06 16:13:26 · answer #8 · answered by spring storm 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋