Will war czar lack ‘clout’?
By on May 16th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Will war czar lack ‘clout’?
As CNN’s Ed Henry noted this evening on The Situation Room, “It’s striking that the President did not publicly introduce Gen. Lute, choosing instead to announce the appointment via a written press release. Normally for a high-profile appointment, the President would make a big splash, raising questions about just how much clout this appointee will have.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Zero credibility is what he meant.
This guy didn’t support the escalation and now he does.
or
General Lute was against the escalation before he was for the escalation.
or
He flip flopped.
May 16th, 2007 at 7:50 pmSomeone who will just be thrown under the bus doesn’t need clout.
May 16th, 2007 at 7:51 pm“Outsourcing Responsibility” is #1 on the list of:
May 16th, 2007 at 7:52 pm“Bush, Iraq and the7 Habits of Highly Defective Presidents.”
Bush’s war czar is just another dumb stooge!
May 16th, 2007 at 7:55 pmHe doesn’t need clout. He’s there to deflect.
May 16th, 2007 at 7:56 pmDare we say
Squat.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:00 pmMy Pet ScapeGoat.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:01 pmThis is a no brainer. Lute is going to be another military fall guy for Bush. When things don’t work out, it won’t be Hadley or Gates who take the fall – after all, they have cushy civilian jobs to go to after the end of the admin. A 3-star can take his retirement early and fade into the sunset when the finger pointing begins.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:10 pmI think there’s more to this story than meets the eye. I’m guessing there’s going to be some major “brush clearing” as this last 20 months comes to a close. As if attempting to clean all traces of the last 6 years of plundering is getting started, I bet Rove has long since started his “paper shredding extravaganza” period. After all, this is what he does.
Hopefully this Congress will catch as many of the high crimes and misdemeanors as possible. This war czar is meant to stall those investigations when the shit hits the fan because there’s no reason to focus on him as he gets going on his job of CIC and Def Sec.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:12 pmOf course he’ll lack clout; that’s the whole idea.
That’s what being a scapegoat is all about: you are the fall-guy for the administration when the shit hits the fan; you fall on your sword; you get thrown under the bus.
You Take The Blame.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:13 pmOf course herr bushit does not want to publicize his utter failure as 28% Leader and Emperor of Iraq…fantasies die hard…which would be the only explanation for finding a military scapegoat to hang the vietraq debacle on…some people will do anything for another star on the shoulder….just look at all the SS generals…
May 16th, 2007 at 8:16 pmHe’s an active duty three star, couldn’t refuse and out ranked. Whaddya you think?
May 16th, 2007 at 8:33 pmWar czar seems unconstitutional to me. What exactly does Commander-In-Chief mean, then?
May 16th, 2007 at 8:35 pmInteresting that no trolls have touched this thread yet.
Why do you think that is?
May 16th, 2007 at 8:40 pmThere has been some talk about his only being a 3-star general, and outranked by field commanders.
The president could promote him to 4-star, can’t he? Would not that raise his clout?
Why hasn’t he?
May 16th, 2007 at 8:48 pmMy Pet ScapeGoat.
Comment by RUCerious — May 16, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
Damn….I wanted to post that one… :P
May 16th, 2007 at 8:48 pmWhat exactly does Commander-In-Chief mean, then?
Comment by JPark
He’s in charge of Decidering, codpieces, and brush cutting.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:49 pmZoo, that is all he should have ever been in charge of (minus any Decidering). Truly, I am confused on this. I am sure it is a ploy to spread out accountability to underlings but 1) It is a little late. 2) It would seem the “war czar” and the CIC would have overlapping responsibilities and 3) If he is not given any real power how could he be a viable scapegoat?
May 16th, 2007 at 8:54 pmIf he is not given any real power how could he be a viable scapegoat?
Comment by JPark
I’m confused by this, as well. But you know who’s going to lap up this silly crap? The 25%. They love it when Chimpy acts like a king.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:11 pmZoo said “I’m confused by this, as well. But you know who’s going to lap up this silly crap? The 25%. They love it when Chimpy acts like a king.”
That 25% would eat from Bush’s…er…cavity and like it. They are not exactly going to change their minds. Playing to the base has gotten a bit old.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:20 pmLute had no choice. His c-in-chief told him of his new position. He either takes it or retires. But Lute will have to be confirmed by the Senate.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:55 pmHe must know that he is simply another human shield before Bush is finally removed from office. Bush is buying time with these layers of bureaucracy in the form of people who can stand in front of him as protection.
Bush doesn’t have to explain or announce anything – at least in his world.
But his effectiveness will be overshadowed by his redundancy.
Also, if Iraq and Afghanistan are not the most important issues facing Hadley and Rice, what are they doing instead? Shredding papers?
Hmmmm. Commander-in-Chief Bush, Secretary of Defence Gates, Centcom Admiral Fallon, and General Pace of the Chief Joints of Staff: Is there any need for another authority here? Particularly someone with a title that really seems to be showbiz & marketing.
Has anyone noticed that this war has no face? No one has emerged to be seen as the Powell, Schwartzkopf, Westmoreland, MacArthur or Eisenhower of this war. Instead, we have a kind of musical chairs where on leader is touted as the “savior” only to be replaced a few months or even weeks later.
What does this mean? It either means the brass really hate this war and find running it repugnant and either quit or are fired. Or the White House doesn’t want anyone to explain this war or put a face to it because they’d rather it remain vague and inexplicable. I tend to think both are true.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:23 pmWith Lute, Bush can continue fiction that he’s listening to military.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:57 pmThis guy is there just to wipe Hadley’s ass if he needs it.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:44 amClout?! Why does a stooge — soon to be the fall guy — need clout? All Bush wanted was a warm body to blame all this crap on should the Democrats continue to avoid stepping up to the plate and ending this debacle as it seems the cowards are resolute to do.
Draft the rich!
May 17th, 2007 at 8:46 am