Now that Bush has a patsy, how long will it take until the administration starts blaming General Lute for the lack of progress in Iraq, and what cute little names will the Bushbots call him?
2007-05-16 05:00:04 · 14 answers · asked by fake_cowboy 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If Bush was smart, that would be the last thing he'd do before he turned out the lights in the West Wing on Inauguration Day. Since he's not, I give it till about August. This while War Czar thing is absolutely ridiculous anyway. Our Commander and Chief doesn't want the burden of Command anymore? Yeah, that's gonna do a lot for troop morale.
2007-05-16 05:03:29 · answer #1 · answered by Beardog 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Don't you find it interesting that Lincoln didn't need a war czar for the civil war, a much bigger and more deadly war for America? What about Wilson in WWI or FDR in WWII as Commanders-in-Chief of their respective wars, each much bigger and more deadly than that little thing in Iraq?
What does Bush plan for his commander guy role and his Defence Secretary to do in place of waging the war he started? Is this an example of neocon smaller government?
If Congress, now that more Republicans are bucking Dubya, passes a spending bill and Dubya vetoes and they over ride will he blame the war czar? There are sure a lot of questions surrounding that poor general. One can also wonder since he is on active duty if it wasn't orders from the commander-in-chief to take the position since others, who were retired, refused to be the scapegoat for Dubya. Just like Ollie North was for Reagan/Bush and the Iran/Contra affair.
2007-05-16 05:16:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I always thought that the Commander in Chief was the "War Czar"
Even F. Roosevelt (stricken with polio) was able to manage the War against Germany and Japan.
What the hell is wrong with Dubya that he has to appoint someone else to clean up his mess?
2007-05-16 05:11:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
They'll only throw him under if he steps out of line and says we ought to have a timetable for withdrawal or that the surge is not working. Same thing that happened to all the other generals Bush disagreed with.
2007-05-16 09:12:37 · answer #4 · answered by Ice Cream Man 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
LOL, I would suspect they would give him a little more time in the position before doing that....but it is inevitable. Took only a day for Gonzo to throw McNulty under the bus. How can anyone still consider this administration "good for the American people"...sheesh.
2007-05-16 05:06:58 · answer #5 · answered by ♥austingirl♥ 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Di lute would be the nickname. As for throwing people under buses I thought they just got Cheney to shoot them nowadays.
2007-05-16 05:15:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
On the contrary, how long before Democrats begin to call for the new war czar's resignation?
Will they even give him a chance?
2007-05-16 05:13:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
give it six months, it wont take that long for the blame to start building up on him, but i estimate it will take about that long until he is under major scutiny, and perhaps even under investigation after another 8.
2007-05-16 05:05:38 · answer #8 · answered by sobrien 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dems are too ashamed of Carter to let him run for President
2007-05-16 05:21:02 · answer #9 · answered by duck 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is only ONE reason for the new war czar - scape goat.
2007-05-16 05:07:21 · answer #10 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋