Is this a good thing? No clue who he is.
Well, unlike Gen Petraius, hopefully this guy has some combat experience.
I graduated a year ahead of him in HS.
http://www.michigancityin.com/articles/2007/04/15/news/n2.txt
Just what we need -— another layer of bureaucracy.
Like with the Homeland Security czar — which didn’t even know about the Ft. Dix plot. Maybe that store clerk should be promoted to HSD czar.
Now, Bush has someone to pass the buck to on war issues. (Wasn’t that the purpose of having a SecDef?)
What am I missing here??
We’re gonna need a czar to oversee all the czars.
The Democrats had their Jimmy Carter. Today, the Republicans have their Jimmy Carter Bush. No difference in their unAmerican and mind-boggling stupidity. If he can’t handle The Office of the Presidency, step down and make room for someone who can.
Oh, I forget, in Bush’s words, the Constitution is just “a goddamned piece of paper.”
(For the record, I am a conservative and not a Republican.)
Is he going to oversee Fallon at Centcom? I thought Fallon was in charge of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I got nothing. I really don’t understand the purpose or the reason of this new government job. I can say officially today that I don’t understand what the President is doing any longer.
This means that Bush has abdicated his position as Commander in Chief (as Michael Savage says). He’s obviously not in control anymore and hasn’t a clue as to what he’s doing or how to win the war. All he’s interested in is his pet project of Mexico - amnesty for illegals, allowing Mexican trucks into this country, etc.
We have a Commander in Chief, Secretary of Defense, Secretaries of each service, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Staff for each service and Field Commanders all engaged in managing what now are police actions and Bush needs a 'War Czar' to oversee the Iraq & Afghanistan conflicts?
How in the world did we ever win WW II against Japan, Germany & Italy that was a full fledged war from beginning to end without a 'War Czar'???