So, what they're looking for is someone with the ability to act in charge, make lots of (approved) public announcements, and say they independantly decided to do what Cheney wants to do.

In other words they want to hire an actor. How about Fred Thompson? Ron Silver? I know! Mel Gibson!

They could always go with someone who has had more practice in announcing GOP policy. Perhaps Brit Hume or Sean Hannity?

Jimbo could have been a candidate, but after the ISG report came out, W told him to talk to the hand.

Ummm...I think that job description would fit the, ummm, president of the United States

Tony Blair is leaving Downing Street soon - he seems perfectly cut out for the position of a more palatable Bush facade. And if that does not work, the administration always seems eager to find a new position for Ahmed Chalabi to "help" Iraq.

if Bill or a Presidetn Hillary announced to all who would listen that they were abdicating their role (and responsibility) as Commander-in-Chief so that a "war czar" could do the job for them? The calls for immediate impeachment would be howls and shrieks. My God, this Administration is designed and built for only two purposes: to protect the tax cuts and to prosecute this war. They don't do anything (other than PR to those ends) else. Bush's base should be furious with him. He looks like a dope who is somehow too busy or confused to get on with "winning" a war on "terror." But, then those people would have to get off the halucinogens and admit that, even if they agreed in principle with what this knucklehead maintains to be proper policy, his execution of said has been abominable. It's as if 30% of the US population would rather end their days with the Fueher in his bunker than come out with their hands up and say that perhaps some misstakes were made.

Stephen J. Hadley, National Security Advisor stated that he does not have the time to oversee the war in Iraq. The Constitution declares this to be the President’s job. Hadley is spending a lot of time recruiting a war czar to obviously replace the President. A war czar would have as much chance at success as an ice cube in Hades. Hadley is perpetrating another bait-and-switch deception. A recent article on World News Network, 4/20/07, “The War Czar: New Strategy to Keep America in Iraq,” tells it all. The only present motive of the Bush administration is to run down the clock to shift blame to the war czar and the new President. There is no longer any intent to win or even support the troops in Iraq. American’s must not allow this administration to again fool America. Hadley needs to stop wasting the time he claims not to have on this tactic with its only intent, creating cover for the President’s “legacy.” Hadley needs to be accountable, the last thing he and his boss want to be.

Dr. Saul B. Wilen

CEO, International Horizons Unlimited

San Antonio, Texas

(210) 363-4329

SBW@intlhorizons.com

www.intlhorizons.com

We didn't have someone specified as the "War Czar" during THAT war, so how did we and the Allies EVER manage to do it, anyway? Hmmm. We had a War Department back then, headed by a Secretary of War, didn't we? Not a squishier "Defense Dept.", but a real War Dept.

Of course, even more importantly, we had a real President back then too. *sigh*

I wonder -- if we went into a major conflict with a clear understanding that it meant full-scale war -- not a cake walk, with residents greeting us with candy and flowers -- but WAR, would we be a bit more selective and focused? Fighting only those wars that are necessary, unavoidable and WINNABLE?

You know what just came to mind? Those old Bugs Bunny cartoons, in which Bugs had just gotten to the end of his rope with some irritating character. He looks sternly at the audience, waves a forefinger in the air, and says in his best Brooklyn accent, "You realize, of course, dat DIS means WAR!" Ah, for such clarity and focus...sad to realize that a cartoon might provide a better model than real life has recently.

and seeing how he single-handedly won the Viet Nam war (albiet a bit late) and aside from some unsightly age lines he is in relatively good shape. So lets annoint him, air drop him into the Green Zone and "retake" that area first. Then onto Iraq proper, Afghanistan, Iran and then Pakastan and North Korea. (Play Rocky theme here, followed by Barbra Ann)

Then onto Egypt and Palastine with one final stop for the up-and-coming Russian front.

(Play Barbra Ann here too, followed by Dream Weaver)

What a bunch of nauseating idoits.

Following Katrina, The Onion ran a bit called "President Bush plans to appoint someone to run country". That sucking sound you hear is the transition from tragedy to farce.

We have people in my organization transferring from one job to another of a frequent occasion.

Of all the people in the current administration/cabinet who whole-heartedly back both the decision to pursue this war and the execution of it, wouldn;t you think that at least ONE of them would enthusiasticly pursue this position?!

Of all the shifting around people have dome in this cabinet and administration, why in the world doesn't one of the existing people want to shift into this position? Why do they have to go outside and get someone?

Obviously they all know it is a piece of shit job and a piece of shit war. They know, like Harry Reid does, that it is a lost cause and they don't want their name on it. Any one of them heard saying otherwise should be asked, "Why aren't you volunteering to be the War Czar?"

I think another poster, Dr. Wilen, has hit it on the head that this isn't so much about trying to make Iraq work as to delay the inevitable and spread the blame. If a 'czar' aka future scapegoat is found, we can have a month or so of news stories about how a new strategy is being deployed, then a month or so of stories about how we need to give the new czar a chance, then a month or so about how 'prominent Republicans' are starting to get frustrated with him, then he can be fired and blamed...and then we're practically in the lameduck period, where Bush can claim he doesn't want to tie his successors' hands by undertaking significant action.

And then, at the cost of mere tens of thousands of American and Iraqi deaths in the meantime, the Bush administration can retire to various golf courses, presidential libraries, and think tanks, to write memoirs justifying themselves still further and heaping one last dose of blame on anti-war activists and that dang incompetent war czar who ruined everything.

It's musical chairs time for the Bush administration. The song is ending; one by one people are dropping out; and the last man or woman left in a position of authority will 'win' the dubious honor of being the one who will be smeared for it all. And we can't expect that any of the old cronies will allow themselves to be in this position, so it's time to bring in some fresh blood.

The transparency of the corruption is truly revolting.