Wes Clark 4 War Czar

Wes Clark needs to step up.

Wes Clark is going to be stuck with this job at one point or another anyways  so he might as well put the screws to Bush, get some serious legally guaranteed power, remind us that a Czar, for all intents and purposes had all the power of god back in the day and start now.

details below the fold

Considering that:
A) As much as it's fun to say "isn't that Bush's Job we all know that Bush was never commander in chief. Cheney was. Cheney was "The War Czar" and he was such a disaster in that position that he might as well have set off a nuclear weapon in a major American city himself and gotten it over with - at least he could have given a time and place and the area could be evacuated beforehand... When it happens - and I think it will happen - the chain of events will be traceable back to this administration.

Cheney was an abject failure and now we know why he was hiding in the shrubs. He is about to be stripped of his power over defence policy. In my view the sudden need for a "war czar" is a repudiation of Dick Cheney and his insanity. "War Czar" is a new name but not a new position in this administration - the fact that there is a sudden vacancy speaks volumes.

B) As much as Kossacks wish it were so - A US withdrawal from Iraq will not "end the war". This problem is not going away on its own. In the end congress will not withdraw funding, not out of fear of being accused of pulling the rug out from under the troops but because they know the US is stuck - in some way shape or form - in Iraq for many years to come.

C) The republicans are totally incapable of dealing with this mess and even if they found someone who was capable...

George Bush and the republicans have no credibility whatsoever on Iraq so even if they came up with the perfect solution no one would listen

D) it might be fun to write in a blog that Iraq is Bush's war but its not, It is America's war and the Democrats are going to have to take charge of this situation and fix it. While the situation in Iraq may seem dire we have to keep in mind that for years Iraq policy has been formulated by a bunch of fucktards who seem hellbent on getting a Darwin Award. Is anyone really surprised that Iraq is fucked up? These people can't even push paper properly.

E) Wes Clark is quite frankly, the best guy for the job. I cannot think of anyone who has more credibility nationally and internationally. He would obviously need to cut a hard deal and get a congressional mandate and legally guaranteed powers including control over the state and defense departments.

F) Wes Clark wanted to be president? Now is his chance.

H) If his offer is scorned the Dems will be in a better position to beat the republicans over the head with this mess.

G) In 2K9 when a Dem is running the white house Wes Clark is probably going to be stuck with this mess anyways. He might as well start now.

•  Within the context...

  ...that the "War Czar" is one of the stupidest ideas ever to be hatched at the federal level, giving Clark the job would be a good idea.

  Which is why, of course, it'll never happen as long as Bush is president. Heckuva job, and all that.

  by Devin on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 06:52:17 AM PDT

  •  This government has always had a war czar

    Only the title is new. It used to be the VP.

    by drag0n on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:10:23 AM PDT

    •  Right

      Actually, what they really need is not a "War Czar," but a "Fuck-up Czar." That way, we can conveniently place all the blame centrally with one person.

      Hell, we can just make that person the VP, too, come to think of it.

      by Devin on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:18:59 AM PDT

      •  I spend

        approx. 4 hours plus a day reading news, blogs, etc. and I cannot keep track of the Fuck Ups. It really boggles the mind.

        Fuck ups upon Fuck ups upon Fuck ups and they can't even cover it up without totally Fucking up the coverup. Libby is a prime example. He is not going to jail because he's a bad man - He is going to jail for being a fuck-up.

        I dunno about a 'Fuck-Up Czar' cuz not everyone can be  Czar and in this case everyone is eligible.

        by drag0n on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:47:48 AM PDT

        •  Dude...

          "He is not going to jail because he's a bad man - He is going to jail for being a fuck-up."

          If you can distill that down to where it will fit on a bumper sticker, I'd totally put it on my car. LOL.

          by Devin on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 09:42:52 AM PDT

          •  Lol

            it IS pretty ironic considering that Libby's troubles all started with Joe Wilson calling the admin on their lies and Libby is going to jail for not being able to get his story straight. Poetic justice.

            by drag0n on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 10:05:06 AM PDT

    •  Actually, this country has always had someone

      who is in charge of directing war.  The position is called "Commander in Chief".

      by EeDan on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 08:37:47 AM PDT

      •  Not with this administration

        It used to be the VP

        by drag0n on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 08:43:13 AM PDT

        •  I thought his title was

          War Monger-in-Chief

          by EeDan on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 09:35:10 AM PDT

•  He was the first one I thought of

  IF they actually wanted an efficient, humanitarian closure to this fiasco.

  But they don't want the war to end. They are building permanent bases and a billion-dollar embassy. They are also using the war as an excuse for every violation of domestic civil rights they can think of.

  Putting someone as competent as Wes Clark in charge would be way too sensible, and wouldn't work toward their goals.

  by MrMichaelMT on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 06:53:20 AM PDT

  •  He should step up anyway

    if his overtures are refused the Dems are innoculated.

    by drag0n on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:12:07 AM PDT

  •  Too sensible is right --

    so it'll probably be Wolfowitz. Yet another big middle finger to the democrats.

    by zashvil on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 08:17:45 AM PDT

•  Compelling

  Of course, in the current Anministration such must be ignored. At least I think it must because to this point any such idea has been ignored.

  by alasmoses on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 06:54:43 AM PDT

  •  Bush has two huge problems

    He really needs to leave office without Iraq being an utter disaster of apocalyptic proportions and in order to even attempt to do so he needs someone with credibility with congress.

    Wes Clark is that man.

    by drag0n on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:16:12 AM PDT

•  Very interesting idea.

  Your points are compelling and well stated.  Entirely accurate, too.  (Except for the "take charge of this situation and fix it" part.  Nobody can fix it.  Iraq, and our future problems, are in pieces and "All the Kings horses, and all the Kings men," can't put Humpty Dumpty together, again.
  From the joke position of Czar, Clark would be able to keep reminding everyone that it's Shrub's fault (and do it covertly).  It would also be a great springboard to becoming POTUS.  The real Czar.

  by rainmanjr on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 06:58:40 AM PDT

  •  Nobody Can Fix It

    obviously it's going to have to fix itself over time. Still, I don't think it has been stated enough that the situation we see now in Iraq is the direct result of the policies and the implimentation thereof the most nonqualified, corrupt, misbegotten group of idiots ever assembled.

    I think the Dems will do better (as they are now in pressuring the Iraq - not only the government but I think they are also hastening the split within the sunni's) and it will have show on the ground.

    by drag0n on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:08:05 AM PDT

    •  Broken on purpose

      Bush couldn't care less about legacy. This blot on the world was a planned enterprise. They don't want it fixed, perpetual war equals perpetual profit.

      Clark might be able to lessen the madness. It's an interesting idea.

      by UncleBuck on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 08:29:24 AM PDT

      •  I don't think it was THIS broken on purpose

        I don't think it was broken on purpose at all actually - these guys are just idiots who turn everything they touch to shit.

        The country is not pumping much oil - I don't think that was part of the plan.

        by drag0n on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 08:35:58 AM PDT

•  I just stumbled on this Wes quote

  oldie from TPM Cafe

  Changing course in Iraq requires leadership

  We all have to realize that this military action in Iraq and Afghanistan is conducted by the White House and Pentagon.  There is only so much that we as Democrats can do to have a direct impact on that.  But what we can do as citizens from the outside is to keep their feet to the fire on developing and revealing a success strategy, which the President still has not done after more than 2 long years in Iraq.

  C'mon Wes, offer your services - on your terms.

  by drag0n on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 06:59:39 AM PDT

  •  The chaos in Iraq

    precludes ANY solution enforced by an OUTSIDE force.

    It's pretty damned easy to see the problem,
    like a splinter that causes inflammation and infection,
    NO treatment can manage the infection until the splinter is removed.
    
    The fastest way to resolution in Iraq,
    and whatever peace there is possible
    is for USA military to leave.  

    We'll have plenty of need for Clark to serve his country again,
    but right now
    the only correct and efficacious service Democrats can provide
    is to get out of Iraq. Now.

    Then,
    punish those responsible for this disaster.

    .

    by slowheels on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:26:44 AM PDT

    •  The US won't leave

      Do you honestly believe that the US is going to completely pull out of Iraq - ever?

      by drag0n on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:28:58 AM PDT

•  Wes for War Czar

  Darfur genocide ender Czar
  Palestinian/Isreali solution Czar
  North Korean nuclear program ender Czar

  Could use his skills in a lot of places

  by LI Mike on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:07:37 AM PDT

  •  Most of all Iraq

    and I am pretty sure he is going to be stuck with the job at one point anyway.

    by drag0n on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:09:20 AM PDT

•  need real leadership...

  What we need is real leadership from the people that are currently in charge, not some phony "war czar" BS position, created simply to pass the buck to someone else.  There is a reason they can't find anybody willing to take this job... anyone who is qualified is smart enough to know that it is going to be a loosing effort and they don't want to have the blame pinned on them.

  This is sort of a mob mentality.  The more layers of beaurocracy you can create between the foot soldiers and the real leaders, the more the leaders are insulated from the decision making.  Fortunitely, nobody is taking the bait.

  by Nathan in MN on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:15:52 AM PDT

  •  Everyone has been fired

    except rice. There is no one minding the store. Even if there was the people in charge of the white house are incomptetent and well... it's the Dems in charge of the rest...

    by drag0n on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:23:29 AM PDT

•  10 minutes. It would last for 10 minutes

  or long enough for General Clark to insult GWB thoroughly enough for it to get through that George's goose is cooked.

  I'd pay serious money to watch.

  by polecat on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:18:11 AM PDT

  •  It's not about Bush anymore

    Iraq is the Democratic parties problem now. They are going to have to fix it.

    by drag0n on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:21:10 AM PDT

    •  "They are going to have to fix it."

      FIX IT ???

      That's insane. It is unfixable.

      THAT was the objection the war in the first place.

      You want Mommy to kiss it and make it better ?

      Grow up.

      It's done. It can't be undone.  That's the point.

      .

      by slowheels on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:29:47 AM PDT

      •  If the US can force the collapse of the USSR

        they can deal with Iraq.

        by drag0n on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:35:38 AM PDT

        •  What makes you think we forced the collapse

          of the USSR?

          They'd been on shaky economic ground for a long time.

          With the departure of East Germany, there was no significant economic engine left behind the iron curtain.

          by polecat on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 12:00:41 PM PDT

          •  The US

            and its allies kept them coralled and on a military footing from the end of the second world war. By the mid-80s the USSR was spending 15%+ of its GDP on military spending.

            by drag0n on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 12:17:38 PM PDT

•  "War Czar" is a PR position

  They're not looking for someone to offer any strategic policy input; they just want someone who hasn't lost all credibilty to tell the public there's a pretty pony over there. All policy will still be determined by CentCom-Lackey Admiral Fallon, Pentagon-Lackey Robert Gates, and Puppet-Master-in-Chief-for-Energy-and-Foreign-Policy Dick "Chickenhawk" Cheney.

  by SheriffBart on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:21:50 AM PDT

  •  I am not so sure about that

    I think Cheney has been axed and there is potentially a lot of power up for grabs. Bush is isolated and desperate

    by drag0n on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:26:43 AM PDT

    •  Re: Cheney - I think you're right

      Somewhere deep within Bush's thick skull, that solitary brain cell has finally realized that the Neocon Cabal has screwed-the-pooch big time and has thus been sidelined (except for the Kagen surge); which is why I don't believe there will be any sort of attack on Iran. But this whole idea of a "War Czar" to oversee the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is a load of crap. That job already belongs to the CentCom commander.

      by SheriffBart on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:51:44 AM PDT

      •  I actually understand the need

        for a "war czar". These two wars encompass much more than just the defence department (esp. now that Cheney is in the dog house and bush is probably desperate enough to even try diplomacy) and a guy with REAL POWER with REAL PULL with the military, internationally and with congress to handle this is about the closest we can come at this point to what is REALLY needed - a new president.

        by drag0n on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:59:43 AM PDT

    •  Cheney is exactly the reason others have

      refused the position.  Who in their right mind would want a job that carries all the blame for the war, but no authority to actually run it?  Jack Sheehan in particular listed that as his reason for declining.

      And isn't "war czar" part of the dunce in chief's job description?

      Where did you come up with the notion that Cheney has been axed?  Apparently it was his side which controlled the debate in the decision not to release the 5 Iranian diplomats we are holding hostage.

      by skrekk on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 10:05:54 AM PDT

      •  Cheney axed

        my notion is based on the idea that the admin has been chugging along for 6 years with Cheney being the defacto War Czar and all of a sudden they are looking for new one.

        pure conjecture with a dab of wishfull thinking.

        by drag0n on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 10:13:25 AM PDT

        •  Actually, the current "war czar" is

          Meghan O'Sullivan, who has been the deputy national security advisor "in charge" of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan for several years now, after her stint as assistant to Paul Bremer in Iraq.  O'Sullivan recently announced that she's leaving, which is why they're trying to fill that PR position.  It's assumed that Cheney makes the actual decisions, which is why no one wants that job.  Odd, isn't it, that they would need a war czar in addition to the secretary of defense.

          by skrekk on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 11:30:47 AM PDT

•  Bush isn't really looking for a War Czar

  Look at the people who have been offered the job. Was it Keane (sp?) the guy from AEI who helped develop the surge strategy? He's looking for a War Mini-Me.

  There's no way Wes Clark would be accepted for the post nor would someone like General Abizaid though he speaks Arabic and was in charge of both Iraq and Afganistan but wouldn't get on board for the surge. Neither would be good War Mini-Me's.

  by dotsright on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:28:45 AM PDT

  •  if he is not accepted

    then the Dems are innoculated in 08.

    by drag0n on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:30:18 AM PDT

•  Pipe Dreams

  Bush may not be able to give away his power as Commander-In-Chief and if he and he decides to get rid of his "Czar" that person will be vilified by the right and blamed for whatever the state of the fiasco is at that point.

  Congress is the War Czar Bush is looking for.  If he doesn't like what Congress is doing he won't like what Wes Clark would be doing because Clark is working hard with Congress now.

  Dems are already innoculated.  They are proposing the correct changes with the right legislation.  As more and more Republicans join the Dems we will soon have a veto proof bipartisan majority on the legislation that will ultimately end the war.  If the Republicans don't join the Dems in the legislation they will pay at the ballot box in '08 and we'll get a veto proof majority then.

  by SimplyLeft on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 08:12:25 AM PDT

  •  I honestly think the real pipe dream

    is the idea that the US can extract itself from Iraq. I really cannot see that happening for a long time no matter who wins in '08

    by drag0n on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 08:40:47 AM PDT

•  Bigger than the job

  Wes Clark once said that you must be bigger than your job. IOW, can your  moral and ethical internal meter resist the pressure imposed by the political forces. Wes Clark is definitely bigger than this job. Thus, he would resign before he was offered the job. He disagrees with everything about bush, a man Clark has accused of "command negligence."

  No one should work for this administration. The person currently tasked with coordinating bush's various wars, although under a different title, is leaving in June.

  I hope that nobody accepts this CYA position for that bastard.

  by Donna Z on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 10:18:16 AM PDT

  •  No one should work for this administration.

    The problem with this is that this admin won't have a functioning replacement for two years. Personally, I think they should be impeached and replaced but that seems a ways off...

    by drag0n on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 10:30:30 AM PDT