Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Colonel Jacobs is so right.
1 posted on 04/13/2007 9:26:52 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Ordinary_American

Colonel Jacobs is 100% spot-on! WTH is wrong with Bush and Gates????????????????????


2 posted on 04/13/2007 9:32:53 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner ("Si vis pacem para bellum")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ordinary_American

What they need to do is delegate authority DOWN the chain of command. Delegating used to be one of Bush’s strengths, but then he allowed his trusted advisors to be scalped by the Democrats so now he’s looking to insulate himself & the war effort by installing “war czar”.

Bush is flopping around. 2008 can’t get here soon enough.


3 posted on 04/13/2007 9:33:51 AM PDT by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ordinary_American

The Constitution already identified the position — it is called Commander in Chief.

[Who in the White House is interpreting The Constitution? Alberto?]


4 posted on 04/13/2007 9:34:55 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ordinary_American
I bet Bush hires the same guy he hired to be the "Border Czar".

Oh, we have no "Border Czar"?

Nevermind...

5 posted on 04/13/2007 9:35:12 AM PDT by isthisnickcool (Hey mister, can you spare a carbon credit?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ordinary_American
...we already have a War Czar, and his name is Robert Gates, who is the Secretary of Defense.

No, his name is George Bush. Commander-in-Chief = War Czar. Gates is just his right-hand man.
6 posted on 04/13/2007 9:36:05 AM PDT by HaveHadEnough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ordinary_American

When I first heard this story a few days ago, I got a bad feeling that the one who wrote the Iraqi Plan might be tapped for the job, since none of the Generals want it. That one — James Baker. [shudders!]


7 posted on 04/13/2007 9:36:48 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ordinary_American

Czars are for Russians.


9 posted on 04/13/2007 9:38:18 AM PDT by dfwgator (The University of Florida - Still Championship U)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ordinary_American

I saw a blip on TV last night about this and thought “this has gotta be some kind of joke”.

/sigh...we are doomed.


12 posted on 04/13/2007 9:40:41 AM PDT by Domandred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ordinary_American

Can’t be true??? I refuse to believe that the “Big Shots” in Washington are that STUPID!! Just what the country needs...another huge beaurocracy. That move would just about seal the Republican’s fate for many elections to come. The libs must be going crazy with joy!! The American public has been subjected to mountains and glaciers of BS about everything in the near past, but if its true....THIS TAKES THE CAKE!!!! (Right...I’m shouting)


13 posted on 04/13/2007 9:45:30 AM PDT by GoldenPup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ordinary_American

This just fits right in pattern with Bush. IE Homeland security, Intel Czar, etc. Just making positions to have the position.


14 posted on 04/13/2007 9:47:59 AM PDT by Blue Scourge (C-17, anything, on time all the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ordinary_American

What we need is a Czar Czar, to oversee all the other Czars.


15 posted on 04/13/2007 9:48:01 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ordinary_American
I agree. The Constitution already gives us a “war czar” who can give orders to all cabinet departments - he’s called the Commander in Chief. And since Washington’s time we’ve had cabinet departments to run the uniformed services. If they want, they could can the name “Department of Defense” and revert to a “Department of War,” which would be fine by me.
22 posted on 04/13/2007 9:58:30 AM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ordinary_American

well if any one was watching Gates and Pace the other day, they were asked about the very subject while discussing the extentions of troop deployments. Gates said the postion was not as discribed by the media. He said it was being created to co-ordinate all branches of government to cut back on the red tape and get every one on the same page and not run the war. So who do you want to believe? Gates’ version or some writer looking to create another controversy?


30 posted on 04/13/2007 10:17:01 AM PDT by SCHROLL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ordinary_American

Media can’t get the story right but what they get right is their contempt for Bush... the story is the just a lead in and set up for perennial Bush bashing.


32 posted on 04/13/2007 10:40:54 AM PDT by Blind Eye Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ordinary_American

Sounds like a “thank you” position for a large contributor.


33 posted on 04/13/2007 10:42:57 AM PDT by lilylangtree (Veni, Vidi, Vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ordinary_American

Obviously the wrong military experts have been contacted.

Bush should contact one of those who knew how to win in a cakewalk. Those would include Perle, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Feith, Adelman, Rice etc.

If actual military experience is a plus, add McCain. But usually the most knowledgeable about war are those without front line experience.


36 posted on 04/13/2007 10:47:12 AM PDT by ex-snook ("But above all things, truth beareth away the victory.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson