This Kelly Johnson?
Posted on 05/06/2007 5:37:11 PM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner
WASHINGTON - Now that the White House is searching for a "war czar," it begs the question of who has been coordinating U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan the past four years.
A team of West Wing players led by national security adviser Stephen Hadley has tried to keep turf-conscious agencies marching in the same direction on military, political and reconstruction fronts. A few Bush aides say privately, however, that the White House probably should have recruited someone to oversee the war effort a year ago.
(snip)
"The problem is not broad strategy and policy, it's that the bureaucracy is so inefficient and there's been so little follow-up that the machine doesn't work," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said. He believes red tape in Washington is the biggest obstacle to winning in Iraq.
Gingrich has joined others in suggesting that a single person report directly to Bush — and perhaps the next president — and ask: "What are the choke points? What regulations do we need to fix?"
Hadley said he wants to make sure that if any request from the war zone bogs down among agencies, there is someone who can speak for the president to get it solved quickly.
(snip)
"This is really more of a head cracker than a czar — a bureaucracy cracker," said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy analyst for the Brookings Institution who likes the idea.
"They want one point person to contact everyone else to tell them that we need these 17 things by Tuesday to comply with the president's top foreign policy priority," said O'Hanlon, a former adviser to the Iraq Study Group. The panel concluded that duplication and conflicting strategies at federal agencies were undermining confidence in U.S. policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
|
Doesn't the AP have even one competent editor? That all-too-common misuse of the "begs the question" construction should have been caught since it is right in the lead paragraph. The "begs the question" construction is properly about the logical fallacy of circular reasoning; it is at best substandard to use it to mean "invites the question".
Maybe we would have been better off with Gore or Kerry
Maybe the French are better than us.
First I just thought you were angry.
Then I thought maybe you were saractic?
Now I'm wondering if why you are on this site.
The lesson is lost on D. C.!
The lesson is lost on D. C.!
Too bad Kelly Johnson isn't around to show them how its done!
You’re kidding, right? This is the same ridiculous argument that Hillary Clinton offers. All of a sudden, we leave Iraq and the war on terror is magically over. Foolishness, although I do agree that this particular argument sounds more like a problem w/ the role of the Secretary of Defense.
Let’s kill two birds w/ one stone and return to calling our ‘Defense Dept.’ the War Dept. This will also anger Dems and the media, thus providing some entertainment value.
This Kelly Johnson?
I believe that if there is not a substantial increase in good news out of Iraq by November 2008, there will likely be a democrat in the White House by January 2009.
As it sits right now, I think that the “Frogs” have a “bigger pair” than we do.
For cripes sake, I think that Hitlery is sporting a bigger “package: than “W” is.....
It’s a pretty sad state of affairs for ME to make this statement.
Looks more like a way for the president to defer his power and responsibility.
Worrying about the results for reasons of political impact is an equally poor argument. President Bush, as is consistent through his entire service in the last 6+ years, is making these decisions based on what is RIGHT (in this case, progress toward victory). References to ‘I’m tired’, ‘our hands are tied’, etc. all sounds like cry baby, ‘this is just like Vietnam’, nonsense in my opinion.
This war is different, it is complicated, and the Commander in Chief has made this very clear from the beginning. Short term memory, various states of denial, and plain ignorance of the facts are not acceptable excuses for cowardice.
Bite me, maggot.
Not a very nice thing to say to someone who is RIGHT.
Ouch. Truth hurts you, huh? Sure, this maggot will bite you rat.
Rumsfeld: New Rules for Non-lethal Combat
WASHINGTON — Top Pentagon officials this week have attempted to craft simple rules of engagement for combat troops in Iraq that would allow them to use ..
We don’t need rules to use Non-Lethal weapons.Our enemies are killing our troops with greater ease everyday by using lethal Vehicle Borne Explosive devices as well as roadside IED. Lets kill these sob’s instead of running the same gauntlet of bombs day after day. I’m begining to wonder who is running this war.
What has Hillary done to win more admiration from you than that?
They should find a necromancier, then go to Outer Mongolia and resurrect Genghis Khan.
Put him in charge of operations against terrorists and Al Quaida in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran and associated Islamic terror states.
Nothing like experience and a proven track record.
“Not a very nice thing to say to someone who is RIGHT.”
Really??
Show mw wherre this twit is “right”?
Show me where I am wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.