Words Count
(Ya' dumb morons...)
The latest 'leak' from the Oval Office is deliciously dysfunctional for so many reasons. Nobody wants the job of War Czar. You'd think of all the qualified, experienced, career (thus political) general officers the white house begged, they could find at least one who would take the chance to oversee the tough but improving and winnable war they started. Kind of embarrassing really. They tried to keep it quiet, don't want anyone to think that the real experts see the task as something more than tough, and less than winnable. That is the spin. It is my theory they leaked the story about seeking a "War Czar."
Have we forgotten overseeing wars is the Secretary of Defense's job. After all, it used to be called the Secretary of War. Pretty big statement on how the administration feels about Secretary Gates, eh? Remember when Gates was first appointed he expressed a desire to shut down the torture cells, er concentration camp... Oh sorry, I shouldn't be leading the reader that way. He wanted to shut down the Gitmo holding pens for the uncharged, unnamed, unrepresented human beings rounded up through questionable methods. The white house slapped him right down.
Then after serving for several months Secretary Gates reiterated his desire to close the Gitmo camps. Has anyone else noticed this coincidence? The white house is deliberately undermining the Secretary of Defense. He's not quite the rabid lap dog rummy was, and doesn't buy all of their agenda. This must be a premeditated assault on the Secretary of Defense for not toeing the party line. It doesn't matter if they find a new scapegoat or not. They will have castrated Secretary Gates whether or not they actually find some loser to be War Czar. If they aren't called on it, it is a win-win situation for taking down yet another man with a spine. They can't fire him right now. They are seeing the flap at the Justice Department over improper firings, and can't afford another blatant slash and burn trail coming back to them.
To top it off they are insulting the entire American electorate once again. "Homeland Security" is a bad enough label, intentionally conjuring up pictures of goose stepping in the name of Der Faterland in the 30's and 40's or in the name of The Soviet in the 40's to the 90's. These aren't accidental names, the coincidence is too much too swallow.
Now we have the white house pining for a "War Czar". The provenance for any word or concept drives it's usage, and just because we don't like the idea of our leaders using role models we consider disgusting does not negate the probability. These kind of terms make it harder to deny what has become a bit too obvious to all by the most obtusely dense.
Let's get back to my playing with what to call the atrocity of the Gitmo detention camp. Maybe we should be consistent and use the precedent set by the story leaked to undermine the Secretary of Defense. How would a czar deal with a perceived threat? You got it. Let's give the detention center a descriptive and accurate title. Gulag.
It's all in their words.
Have we forgotten overseeing wars is the Secretary of Defense's job. After all, it used to be called the Secretary of War. Pretty big statement on how the administration feels about Secretary Gates, eh? Remember when Gates was first appointed he expressed a desire to shut down the torture cells, er concentration camp... Oh sorry, I shouldn't be leading the reader that way. He wanted to shut down the Gitmo holding pens for the uncharged, unnamed, unrepresented human beings rounded up through questionable methods. The white house slapped him right down.
Then after serving for several months Secretary Gates reiterated his desire to close the Gitmo camps. Has anyone else noticed this coincidence? The white house is deliberately undermining the Secretary of Defense. He's not quite the rabid lap dog rummy was, and doesn't buy all of their agenda. This must be a premeditated assault on the Secretary of Defense for not toeing the party line. It doesn't matter if they find a new scapegoat or not. They will have castrated Secretary Gates whether or not they actually find some loser to be War Czar. If they aren't called on it, it is a win-win situation for taking down yet another man with a spine. They can't fire him right now. They are seeing the flap at the Justice Department over improper firings, and can't afford another blatant slash and burn trail coming back to them.
To top it off they are insulting the entire American electorate once again. "Homeland Security" is a bad enough label, intentionally conjuring up pictures of goose stepping in the name of Der Faterland in the 30's and 40's or in the name of The Soviet in the 40's to the 90's. These aren't accidental names, the coincidence is too much too swallow.
Now we have the white house pining for a "War Czar". The provenance for any word or concept drives it's usage, and just because we don't like the idea of our leaders using role models we consider disgusting does not negate the probability. These kind of terms make it harder to deny what has become a bit too obvious to all by the most obtusely dense.
Let's get back to my playing with what to call the atrocity of the Gitmo detention camp. Maybe we should be consistent and use the precedent set by the story leaked to undermine the Secretary of Defense. How would a czar deal with a perceived threat? You got it. Let's give the detention center a descriptive and accurate title. Gulag.
It's all in their words.
1 Comments:
As you know, I regularly call it the department of "Fatherland Security". It does have that same Nazi/Soviet feel to it.
I agree that this Czar position is a way to undercut Gates, but it is also a way to undercut Rice. The so-called Czar (a term we should banish from all government positions) would oversee the Pentagon, the State Dept. , Fatherland Security, and the Justice Department as they pertain to the so-called War on Terror. That undercuts Gates, Rice, Gonzales, and Chertoff. It, in essence, is a revival of the Gustapo or KGB. It shows not only a willingness to concentrate control, but also a suspicious nature towards elements within Bush's own government.
Cheney must be behind this. He sees near equals attempting to dismantle the structures that he has worked hard to set in place. These folks are even collaborating with a Democratic Congress (and listening to the will of the public in doing so) to curb Cheney's reforms. In a fit of Nixonian paranoia, his next Machiavellian maneuver is to undercut these people with a new appointment.
Tellingly, this person is not a new cabinet position. Congress would never allow it. Instead, this new position will report directly to the puppet and thief, Bush. As you note, even if they find no takers (someone will take it, though - some sycophant greedy for power and prestige), Cheney has already let these cabinet members know that he's not happy with their positions on Gitmo, Middle East peace, terrorist prosecutions, or security data bolstering his lies.
You're right: we have a secretary of defense, formerly known as a secretary of war. We also have a Commander in Chief (in theory, Bush). Why would we need a Czar to trump them? Cheney no longer has a need for Bush. Bush is a lame duck. This is Cheney's last big chance to grab power and enforce his agenda until the end of his term.
Post a Comment
<< Home