What a relief - Bush no longer in charge of Iraq/Afghan wars.

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Bush has at last found some sucker, ahhh, I mean, important guy, to run the wars so he doesn’t have to - which must be a good thing, right?, because he is evidently out of ideas. </p>

<p>He has appointed a WAR CZAR. </p>

<p>(Sounds important! But wait - weren’t the Czars autocratic, cruel and corrupt? Why do we long for them so? Oh, because they work really well - like the Drug Czar for instance.)</p>

<p>Anyway, thankfully, Tony Snow was able to clearly illuminate this new position at today’s White House Press Briefing:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>(Is it my imagination or does even Tony Snow sound like he’s lost all hope?)</p>

2

<p>Just another general ding-dong can ignore.</p>

3

<p>^ (And only a three star at that.)</p>

4

<p>this is just someone new to throw under the bus when things don’t work out and so “W”, Cowboy Dick and the boys can continue to lay off the blame. A new “fall guy”. </p>

<p>The absurdity of this is that this should be the job/obligation/responsibility of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff whose position is to serve as the principal military advisor to the President, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council. But perhaps he’s done his job and told 'em what they don’t want to hear so a new “yes man” is in place - the War Czar. </p>

<p>I understand his first order was to paint the roses red.</p>

5

<p>Trouble is, the joint chiefs of staff were against the brilliant surge idea. Every one of them, as I recall. So Bush needs someone else to be the public face of the war; no one would believe for a moment that the joint chiefs and not the AEI was running this show.</p>

6

<p>I’ve HAD IT with this darn war!!!</p>

7

<p>

</p>

<p>Welcome to the party. Come on in, kick your shoes off, and make yourself comfortable. The bar is over there.</p>

<p>I notice that the Iraqis have lauched successful rocket attacks against the Green Zone two days in row. They apparently got one of Malaki’s drivers today.</p>

8

<p>And now Harry’s not going to Iraq because it’s “too dangerous.” A war that is ‘too dangerous’, how about that?</p>

<p>After WW2 we were a great military and manufacturing power. Now, what do we export? War?<br>
It’s almost like we are keeping this war going just to give the military something to do. Like we couldn’t keep some of our U.S. bases. All being sold off because they are ‘too expensive’ to keep. Really think about that. Where are our priorities?
This war is about oil and Haliburton.</p>

<p>It’s going on too long.It’s becoming Viet Nam.</p>

<p>Maybe this darn war is keeping OUR economy going?</p>

9

<p>

</p>

<p>I’ve yet to see any high level military officer who wants to keep this war going.</p>

10

<p>There isn’t any war. That’s Orwell-speak.</p>

11

<p>Perhaps we would have been better off if Bush had appointed a PEACE CZAR</p>

12

<p>Nah, peace is no way to feed the corporate war machine.</p>

13

<p>

This kind of cynical attitude toward national defense is what gives people the impression that Democrats are weak on this issue. What would you prefer? That this country NEVER engage in any conflict? Never protect our national interests? Or is it only ok to intervene as long as it doesn’t benefit us directly, i.e. Bosnia or Somalia? So, are you suggesting that the “corporate war machine” that helped defeat the Nazi’s was a waste? </p>

<p>I don’t get it. What do you mean by “corporate war machine?” Companies that produce the next fighter jet, armed vehicle, communications systems? There IS NO corporate war machine, except in the imagination of those who can’t understand the need for a defense industry.</p>

<p>And then you wonder why the average American has trouble picturing a Democratic national defense – it’s an oxymoron.</p>

14

<p>SJmom, with all due respect, I really want to ROTFL at the statement that there is NO corporate war machine.</p>

<p>Have you checked out the profits, just from Halliburton and Exxon (to name but two of the many corporate profiteers), since the invasion? They have made out very well financially from this war. Very well.</p>

15

<p>Allmusic, you and I will never agree on any defense issue. It’s pointless to continue discussing anything more.</p>

16

<p>"Thursday, May 17, 2007
After hedging, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton commits to Iraq withdrawal deadline</p>

<p>By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer</p>

<p>WASHINGTON (AP) _ Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton voted Wednesday to advance legislation cutting off money for the Iraq war, then refused to pledge to support the measure if it came to a vote, then said she would.</p>

<p>At lunchtime, the New York senator and presidential candidate was asked repeatedly by reporters whether she favored the troop withdrawal legislation that had just come up for a procedural vote on the Senate floor.</p>

<p>Her answer: “I’m not going to speculate on what I’m going to be voting on in the future. I voted in favor of cloture to have a debate.”</p>

<p>By supper time, she had a different answer.</p>

<p>“I support the underlying bill,” she said. “That’s what this vote on cloture was all about.”</p>

<p>A rival Democratic camp quickly criticized Clinton’s evolving _ and possibly revolving _ statements.</p>

<p>“We’re as confused as anyone on Senator Clinton’s position,” said Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd’s campaign spokeswoman, Christy Setzer.</p>

<p>“Frankly, it’s hard to know whether it’s indecision, miscommunication or simple word games and political gamesmanship we’re dealing with. Our troops in Iraq don’t have time for poll-tested word games,” Setzer said.</p>

<p>Clinton sided with 28 other senators who lost a procedural vote on the measure offered by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. The amendment would have cut off money for combat operations after March 2008.</p>

<p>Clinton long has resisted calls from those within her own party to impose a specific deadline on troop withdrawal in Iraq, a position that has at times resulted in her being booed by anti-war activists.</p>

<p>At the noontime news conference, Clinton insisted she had not changed her position on a specific withdrawal date.</p>

<p>“This is consistent with what I’ve been saying for several years,” she said.</p>

<p>Even as she denied there were any mixed signals in her votes and statements on a troop withdrawal, she criticized what she called growing confusion caused by President Bush’s Iraq policy, including the appointment this week of a “war czar.”</p>

<p>Clinton said she wants her vote to send a message to Iraqi leaders that they have to do more to stabilize their country before the United States will commit to a longer troop presence there."</p>

<hr>

17

<p>you people are idiot fools.</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>Ya never heard of Halliburton? LOL Now squirelled away, I mean, uh headquartered in Dabai?!</p>

19

<p>1sokkermom: </p>

<p>Clinton announced earlier in the week that she would vote for cloture on the Reed-Feingold legislation, allowing the bill to proceed. She was one of 28 Senators who did, indeed, vote for cloture. Of course she knew the outcome of the vote ahead of time. Senate votes are carefully choreographed, like a Viennese waltz. Unlike Senators who proclaim how they would have voted on bills six years earlier if they had been in the Senate or to try to “change” their votes six years after the fact, Clinton is smart to stick to bills that she actually can vote on and let her voting record speak for itself.</p>

<p>Yesterday was a fast-moving legislative day. While it was clear yesterday morning that Reed-Feingold would not pass, it was not clear what alternative legislation might come to vote. For example, Levin’s bill with non-binding timelines was still being offered (until the White House informed Levin that the President would veto a bill with non-binding timelines).</p>

20

<p>Zorz…. calling people names like idiots and fools is not a good way to make a case…if you have something worth while to say, say it. Calling people names makes thinking people you are just displacing frustration and have very little worth while to add to the public debate. </p>

<p>Now what do you think and why?</p>