Thursday, April 12, 2007

From CNN...Breaking News?

Picked up on two facts from CNN:
  1. GW Bush wants a "War Czar" and
  2. There was an attack this morning on that government building in the heavily fortified "green zone" that houses the Iraqi parliament.
Of the latter, one or more members of the Iraqi government were killed in the blast.

However, Smash mouth Don Imus took most of the air time as to his future career for having engaged in potty mouth against Rutger's State all Woman basket ball team. So much so, that the latest round of violence in Iraq could only take up a minute or two of air time. GW's chances of "victory" in Iraq, of increased "safety" in Baghdad, of keeping propped up a "democratically elected government" until they can stand on their own feet and secure their own future without an American occupational force already seems to have faded into non-existence. The American troop surge in Iraq has not quelled the violence nor can it protect the Iraqi government, such as it exists. Shouldn't Imus have been set aside and CNN discussing at length what this means to GW's foreign policy vis a vis Iraq?

GW's War Czar; does that mean GW puts another layer of bureaucracy between himself and the Pentagon or another layer of bureaucracy between Bill Gates Secretary of Defense and the Pentagon or even a layer of bureaucracy between Stephen Hadley, the National Security adviser and those who answer to him? Seems we have a real problem here:
  • GW doesn't like to govern very much. Before the 2000 election year, "The Nation" ( disclosed the fact that GW as governor didn't care to govern. So how long did it take Joe Klein of Time magazine to reach the same conclusions? Only until the latest issue of Time magazine to realize it. So, whenever GW gets caught being an ineffective leader, his response is to deflect responsibility, make other people the fall guy, talk a lot and lard more layers of bureaucracy onto government.
  • GW controls who he talks to.
  • Even further, GW controls who he listens to.
  • If GW couldn't be bothered listening to the generals, the Iraq Study Group or the new Democratically controlled Congress, what makes anyone think he'd listen to a "War Czar?"
For what ever reason GW continues to drag his heels on an effective solution in Iraq, and it is his problem after all, what would the next president have to face?

No comments: