Friday, May 18, 2007

Why a War "Czar"?

There has been a lot of speculation as to why the President wants to appoint someone to be in charge of prosecuting the war in Iraq (the so-called "War Czar"). As many have suggested, doesn't the Commander in Chief already hold that position?

I don't actually mean this as a "snark", or sarcastic comment, and I don't really even mean it in a cynical way, but I think this might actually be close to the truth: the President is sick of dealing with Iraq, and probably overrode Karl Rove (despite the political problems such a move would cause) to make this happen. He has a history of getting into business situations and failing at them, and then either bailing or getting someone (like his father or his father's friends) to fix the situation for him. This is just true; read anything you like about the history of Bush's business dealings.

Isn't this the most likely reason for such an odd and politically risky move?

2 comments:

Rach said...

It adds a whole new level to all the corporate crap that has invaded the govt. And to fight back we ( the masses) come up with a name that is most militaristically govt-like in the czar. How very autocratic of the shrub.

I thought he was the war manager...

Korene said...

Great work.