<blockquote>The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation. - <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001776_pf.html><i>The Washington Post</i></a>, 4/11/07</blockquote> Bush wants a "war czar"!?! He and his cabinet already possess ALL of the powers he wishes to give to the poor dumb bastard that gets appointed to the position. The mouthpiece filling in for Tony Snow tells us that Bush wants advice and input from a variety of sources. We've seen, however, that he tends to ignore that advice. Remember the Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker? But didn't Bush tell us, not so long ago that he was the "decider". We've known all along that his decisions are guided more by the voices in his head than the voices of reason around him. Three retired generals have told the White House "No Thanks!" when offered the position. in the words of one general, <blockquote>"The very fundamental issue is, <b>they don't know where the hell they're going</b>," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said</blockquote> Seems to me that Bush is following a pattern he has followed all his life...Blame someone else. And typical of drunks, even dry drunks, seek another enabler. I just wonder if he's talking to Richard Nixon's portrait yet.