I wonder what would happen if Cheney were impeached instead of Bush.

GQ (of all places) published an article on the Articles for Cheney:

http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5402&pageNum=1

Would Cheney take control of the search for a new Vice President and pick his own successor?

Would Bush listen to anyone else? He'd probably want Jeb as his VP but Jeb is part of that whole PNAC group who wanted the war in the first place. Who would Bush listen to that could actually be confirmed? Hmmm.

Screw it, impeach them both and put Speaker Pelosi in charge.

So General Keane, the architect of the Surge has turned this down?

Honestly, what does that say about Bush's plan for Victory?

Amazing...

...wouldn't refusing orders constitute mutiny?

Generals not submitting to the Commander in Chief?

Just asking...

Mutiny? Well, no. Those generals are retired. They can't be called back to active duty at this point without their consent, unless there is a draft (and even then I am not sure).

It is, incidentally, an absolutely damning indictment of the Bush Administration and the war effort.

The dubious constitutionality of this sort of arbitrary delegation of Executive power to some underling aside, who would in their right mind sign up for this job?

It would probably be more accurate to call this position the "Failure Patsy" or "Designated Whipping Boy" or "Scapegoat Czar" or howabout just "Lightning Rod." Does anyone have a single doubt that once they get some sod in this job, that Bush's tune (along with that of all his loyal followers) will change to an Alberto Gonzalez-like refrain of "Why are you asking/blaming me? I have no idea what's going on, it's the War Czar's job!" And then he'll ignore and resist all efforts to oust whatever starry-eyed, dissembling incompetent hack he suckered into taking the job as he staggers off into the sunset of his failed presidency in 2008.

It's been a poorly hidden fact for 6 years that career military men have looked at the hawks running the White House with barely hidden disdain. They follow orders because its their job. But its the worst kept secret in Washington that anyone with a knowledge of the military, anyone who's served in the military, anyone who knows what its really like to put troops into battle looks at this administration as a bunch of frat guys playing paintball. they have no clue. And they have no real understanding of human suffering, of death, of injury. It's no surprise to me that any general worth his weight in salt would turn this job down, knowing that he's just going to have Cheney breathing in his hear the entire time about "victory" and "strategic influence" and "resource security". It's a non-job. A cosmetic position so the White House can look serious about fighting these wars. But it's a waste of time.

you can - someone whose sole exposure to enemy fire is the flaming batons he used to douse in a coffee can of water when his skank wife finished her flaming baton performances - someone whose sole military service has been helping himself and his corporate butt-buddies to feed at the trough, someone to whom knowledge of military history, the art of warfare and the techniques of military action are as alien as the simple gun safety rule of never shoot your hunting companion in the face - and you make HIM the de facto war czar - so that anyone actually qualified to do the job heads for the hills.

That's a plan, alright, but not one destined for any success.

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't the Secretary of Defense the War Czar? Why do we need another?

Consistent with sinister eyebrow's comment about the "dubious constitutionality" of this move, what is really interesting about this story is not that men of honor have turned it down, but that they are talking about putting a political appointee (no Senate confirmation) in the chain of command, between the President and the Secretary of Defense and with authority over the State Department!

Can you imagine what would have happened if they tried to do this during Don Rumsfeld's watch? Surely, his head would have exploded.

I agree that this looks like part of the effort to avoid responsibility:

We surged, but the Iraqis didn't do their part, so it's their fault.

We stayed the course, and it was President #44 who conceded failure, so it's his/her fault.

It was the czar, we gave him a chance and he's the one who blew it.

pgm.

momesq wrote: Forgive my ignorance, but isn't the Secretary of Defense the War Czar? Why do we need another?

Actually, I think it's the guy they call Commander in Chief.

Does anyone have a single doubt that once they get some sod in this job, that Bush's tune (along with that of all his loyal followers) will change to an Alberto Gonzalez-like refrain of "Why are you asking/blaming me? I have no idea what's going on, it's the War Czar's job!"

That's exactly what this is, and what Bush has done all his life when things he's "responsible for" go down the tubes; namely, find someone to bail him out or take the blame for the whole mess. Only now he's dealing with military men who operate in the real world, rather than one of Daddy's wealthy underlings/business partners, and they've told him essentially to go shove it. The schadenfreude would be delicious if it weren't for all the dead people.

It's just typical that "the Decider" would conveniently be oblivious to the fact that being President means you are the "war czar". Personally I can't wait to see the knots his "base" and his water carriers in the media twist themselves into in an attempt to explain this one away.

When the commander-in-chief is an idiot boy king, and the Secretary of Defense balks at carrying out his insane whims, you need a war czar.

Let's put Cheney out in the streets of Baghdad with a rifle.