Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 11, 2007
Cheney’s ‘War Czar’ Raid Attempt

What a weird idea:

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, …

Coordination between the various departments and agencies is THE job of the national security adviser. Hadley, currently in that position, has no formal authority to "issue directions" to State and DoD, but Bush could easily delegate this to Hadley.

So there must be something else behind the idea. What and who would be affected by such a new position?

[T]he new czar would report directly to Bush and to Hadley and would have the title of assistant to the president, just as Hadley and the other highest-ranking White House officials have, the sources said. The new czar would also have "tasking authority," or the power to issue directions, over other agencies, they said.

Gates and Rice would have someone installed between the President and themselves. Hadley, Rice’s former deputy, would be shifted to the side. All three would have less influence and less direct access to the President should such a position be installed.

All three have shown a tiny bit of independence from the hard neocon line coming out of the AEI and Cheney’s office. Cheney is certainly not happy with Gates opinion on Guantanamo and he has sabotaged Rice several times on Middle East issues by direct contacts with Bandar in Saudi Arabia and Olmert in Israel. So could this be an attempt to rein these Secretaries in and to bring the policy under Cheney’s influence?

Who cooked this up?

The idea of someone overseeing the wars has been promoted to the White House by several outside advisers. "It would be definitely a good idea," said Frederick W. Kagan, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Hope they do it, and hope they do it soon. And I hope they pick the right guy. It’s a real problem that we don’t have a single individual back here who is really capable of coordinating the effort."

The neocons are pushing for a new central position/person that can overrule Gates and Rice. With the right person in that position, it would be a complete takeover of Middle East and war policies.

But there would certainly be an outcry if the job would go to someone like Richard Perle or some other true believer. So they looked for someone in uniform and offered the job to three retired four-star Generals.

But that is a crazy idea too. A retired four-star, without Senate confirmation, to "issue directions" to the Secretary of Defense? The Washington foreign policy establishment, with some nudging by Rice and Gates, would certainly have barked at that scheme.

Those Generals asked, all to some degree administration insiders, smelled the rat and have turned down the job offer.

Besides [General] Sheehan, sources said, the White House or intermediaries have sounded out retired Army Gen. Jack Keane and retired Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, who also said they are not interested.

No one wants to get between the lines where there is nothing waiting but pain.

"The very fundamental issue is, they don’t know where the hell they’re going," 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.

For now Cheney’s raid attempt on foreign policy has failed for lack of willing personnal. But don’t expect him to give up on this.

Comments

It means that the current War Crazies are about to start a new war and they need someone to handle the small stuff.
I’d pray, but I don’t believe it would help.

Posted by: hopping madbunny | Apr 11 2007 10:45 utc | 1

“I nominate Rush Limbaugh for the job, with Bill O’Reilly as his attack dog, er special assistant, to bring all those cowardly military people into line! They are doubting that we will win final victory, the cowardly traitors!”
“The answer to America’s problems is war, and more war without end. It is time to make war a never-ending institution, just as American as apple pie!”
(Winning wars is a minor detail.)
This sounds like some bright idea Adolf came up with in his Berlin bunker in the final days. After all, it wasn’t Adolf’s fault that Germany lost the war; it was the fault of the German people, who were not worthy of the Fuhrer’s leadership…
The next step will be for Dick Cheney to stage a press conference with Fox and the New York Post in the bunker where he blames liberals and “those who abuse freedom and personal rights” of losing the War on Terror. Ideally, he would be wearing his hunting jacket and carrying his shotgun to impress his audience.

Posted by: Chris Marlowe | Apr 11 2007 11:50 utc | 2

The administration’s interest in the idea stems from long-standing concern over the coordination of civilian and military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan by different parts of the U.S. government. The Defense and State departments have long struggled over their roles and responsibilities in Iraq, with the White House often forced to referee.
is the cia civilian? i have had a feeling all along the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing.
are they trying to co ordinate their puppets in the failed iraqi government w/operations on the ground?
i know somebodies shitting bricks over the oil draft ‘benchmark”.
so desperate

Posted by: annie | Apr 11 2007 11:53 utc | 3

from wapo’s comment section, they are having a field day over there
Cheney: We MUST stop the pragmatists from interfering with our to plan to trade democracy for oil! Bush: Should we appoint a 4star Neocon as Warlord? Condi: But no one wants the job… Cheney: Well just call up some schmuck from central casting – its worked before.
maybe cheney has to have another heart operation or something and they need someone to fill in as everyone knows bush is incapable of anything and just some worthless window dressing. nobody makes any war decisions but cheney anyway..do they?
what’s it going to take for these assholes to accept defeat? do they think they can find some magician to fix this?
the only upside is this disastrous administration … one hell of a broadway play.

Posted by: annie | Apr 11 2007 12:15 utc | 4

Here it is 9 AM EST, April 11th. CNN is reporting that Iran has been training insurgents within Iran, and Syria has been doing the same thing — both “within the past month.”
Sure. Uh huh. Right.
CNN is also reporting that the Army “has proof” that Iran has been manufacturing shaped charges (EFP’s) in Iran, and smuggling them into Iraq to blow up our troops.
A-yep.
They’re getting all their rationales in place for bombing Iran, and right soon.
Robert Fisk reports this morning that we’re going to create thirty or so “gated communities” within Baghdad proper, wherein no one is allowed to come or go unless they have a fancy new ID card. This will be after all males of military age are deported, jailed or disappeared.
As Lily Tomlin says, “It’s going to get a lot worse before it gets worse.”

Posted by: Antifa | Apr 11 2007 13:15 utc | 5

whoever takes that position would be guaranteeing themselves a front row seat at a future nuremberg. not exactly a smart career move. is the admin looking for a scapegoat or patsy?

Posted by: b real | Apr 11 2007 14:23 utc | 6

@ annie What’s it going to take for these assholes to accept defeat?
Was asking myself the same question last night, watching Nova. I fear the only answer is removal from power or, short of that, effective marginalization of the insane at the heart of this hell.
Nova last night broadcast a show on “Sinking of the Yamato”, the largest battleship every built, which the Japanese had held in reserve near the end of WWII.
What the show made clear was that generals, or someone at the highest levels of central command, were sending college students out as kamikaze pilots and the Yamato to certain destruction in what “any reasonable person” knew in advance was a quixotic, impossible mission.
Clearly the ship’s commanders were not confused about the outcome of sailing directly toward the whole US Pacific fleet. They advised all the crew to put their affairs in order before they sailed. Predictably, less than 48 hours after leaving port, the ship was attacked and sunk by a US air attack.
As it turns out, the Yamato was not only the largest but also the last battleship ever built. Seems by the time it hit the water, air power and the changing nature of war had made it an obsolete symbol of national pride. Like another multibillion $ arsenal under extravagant production today.
Who are these madmen who grab central command positions, initiate wars, and simply cannot call retreat, regardless of the consequences for the people, nations, groups they supposedly seek to lead? And by what measures might we identify them in the future and exclude them from such posiitions, before they can strike, infect whole peoples with their bloody, destructive illusions?
(PBS making some interesting broadcast choices recently. Saturday movie was “Judgement at Nuremberg”.)

Posted by: small coke | Apr 11 2007 14:55 utc | 7

emtywheel and Kevin Drum both think the issue of getting a “czar” is about Hadley’s incompetence or management problems.
Much too short a view. My take is that Rice and Gates are quite of the same opinion and would love to change course, but can not do so because Cheney spoils every of their initiative. That’s not enough for Cheney – he wants to control them – therefore a “czar” that can order them around.
“Czar” being bad wording here – that was an absolute ruler with no President or VP above him …

Posted by: b | Apr 11 2007 15:44 utc | 8

Czarina Rice sounds so Red October.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Apr 11 2007 16:05 utc | 9

WaPo: “…hoping to find someone President Bush can anoint

Posted by: biklett | Apr 11 2007 16:07 utc | 10

Excellent point, b, about how the czar position would fit right into Cheney’s pudgy hands. One could even infer that Cheney himself could take that position, except that would mean his leaving the cozy confines of the OVP which (according to him) lies in a constitutional no man’s land where oversight and accountability fear to tread.
This czar thing reminds me of the good old Iraq Stabilization Group:
“Rice will head the Iraq Stabilization Group, which will have coordinating committees on counterterrorism, economic development, political affairs and media messages. Each committee will be headed by a Rice deputy and include representatives of the State, Defense and Treasury departments and the CIA.”

Posted by: Dick Durata | Apr 11 2007 16:42 utc | 11

Seems The Onion had the scoop in 2005. From TPM

Instead of ‘czar’ maybe we can just call the person ‘training wheels’? Someone to oversee wars, the Pentagon, the State Department and everything else? Don’t we elect that person every four years?
[Reader] JP says it reminds him of this November 2005 piece from The Onion …

In response to increasing criticism of his handling of the war in Iraq and the disaster in the Gulf Coast, as well as other issues, such as Social Security reform, the national deficit, and rising gas prices, President Bush is expected to appoint someone to run the U.S. as soon as Friday.

Posted by: small coke | Apr 11 2007 16:57 utc | 12

‘The latest “security” plan, of which The Independent has learnt the details, was concocted by General David Petraeus, the current US commander in Baghdad, during a six-month command and staff course at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. Those attending the course – American army generals serving in Iraq and top officers from the US Marine Corps, along with, according to some reports, at least four senior Israeli officers – participated in a series of debates to determine how best to “turn round” the disastrous war in Iraq.’
from the fisk article

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 11 2007 17:11 utc | 13

@r’giap – yes, and the U.S. Generals learned from the Israeli Generals that one does this by building WALLs. As the Israeli discovered, mortars can fly above those … the Fisk piece: Divide and rule – America’s plan for Baghdad
The plan for the “czar” is titled: “‘Unite under my rule’ – Cheney’s plan for the White House”

Posted by: b | Apr 11 2007 17:53 utc | 14

Every country that fears and resents the United States has even more reason to do so when it sees its fate resting with this manifestly unfit buffoon looking for a magical father figure to rescue him one more time. And those are our allies. Rove must be chewing the rugs that this got out. I wonder if it will affect the votes of any more Republicans in Congress on funding/withdrawal. Why should they stick their necks out for this fool any longer? I would also hope this might embolden the Democrats to try to slow down the Iran campaign but that seems to be proceeding on its own track with today’s round of stenotyped Caldwellian recriminations.

Posted by: YouFascinateMe | Apr 11 2007 18:59 utc | 15

Someone just sent me the following…
Col. Jack Jacobs- “I don’t know what they’re smoking up at the White House, but it sure isn’t legal”
He said this on MSNBC regarding Bush’s plan to have a War Czar in charge of Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope Crooks and Liars gets this and will post it shorty.
I guess Jack didn’t get the memo from Gonzalez. If the chimp does it, it’s legal. If anyone has any further questions, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy will be happy to straighten your America-hating ass out!
Welcome to the “Tsarist Occupational Government”.
Tsarism represents an intermediate form between European monarchism and Asian despotism, being, possibly, closer to the latter of these two.
~Leon Trotsky, Russia’s Social Development and Tsarism.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 11 2007 19:36 utc | 16

I wonder how many posters here have been approached about taking this job? I haven’t been since I was out all afternoon and thus couldn’t answer the phone, but my sister was offered it this morning but had to turn it down because she was about to go out to the dentist.

Posted by: johnf | Apr 11 2007 19:41 utc | 17

Most people think the TSOG [Tsarist Occupation Government] began its infestation of America with George Bush Sr., when he appointed a Tsar to discombobulate our previously democratic form of government; but Bush had a long C.I.A. career behind him and the C.I.A. had a long, long Tsarist history before they came out in the open with a public and blatant Tsar, a functionary not endowed or permitted by any clause in our Constitution.
Actually, the TSOG began replacing representative democracy in the U.S. way back in 1945, when Gen. Rheinhard Gehlen, Hitler’s Chief of Soviet Intelligence, surrendered to the U.S. Army, after first prudently burying several truckloads of “inside information” about the Soviet Union at a secret location.
Gehlen was not only a master spy but a wizard negotiator. Within a week, he was out of his Nazi uniform and into a U.S. Army General’s uniform; the U.S. intelligence services, in return, got the info about the Soviets, including access to Gehlen’s agents in the Soviet government — a group of Mystical Tsarists who had infiltrated both the Red Army and the KGB.
You see, their leader and Gehlen’s major “asset,” General Andrei Vlassov, had a fervent belief, not just in common or garden Tsarism, but especially in the “mystical Tsarism” espoused in the later half of the 19th Century by the anti-Semitic novelist Dostoyevsky and even more by Konstantin Pobedonostsev, an advisor to two Tsars [Alexander III and Nicholas II].
Pobedonostsev, popularly called “The Grand Inquisitor” because of the vast platoons of spies, snoops, agents provocateur and informers he unleashed upon the Russian people , combined theological obsessions with reactionary politics, always an explosive and nefarious mixture.
“Mystical Tsarism” deserves a whole book in itself. especially since it now rules our own country; but we must be brief here. This holy religion, or superstition — as you will –has two major tenets: (1) The Tsar is guided by God and can do no wrong (2) Reason is “cold” and inhuman, faith is “warm” and human; therefore we should ignore reason and guide ourselves by faith in the Tsar, our “Little Father.” I don’t think any of Pobedonostsev’s crew actually believed in the Tooth Fairy, though.
Besides, Roman Catholics of the old school have similar attitudes, but merely prefer a Pope to do their thinking for them instead of a Tsar, and most of us consider them sane, but just “weird.”
Gen. Gehlen and Gen. Vlassov formed what became the Gehlenapparat, the CIA’s main source of info on Soviet affairs; Gehlen became the fulcrum of the CIA’s “Soviet penetration” sector, working under James Jesus Angleton, Chief of Counter-Intelligence, breeder of prize orchids, lover of the arts, and a devout Catholic.
Since the U.S. government based its foreign policies on CIA reports, and the CIA based its Soviet reports on Gehlen and some other former Nazis, plus a crew of Mystical Tsarists, as filtered and interpreted by a Papist intellectual, the U.S. government’s ideas and actions became increasingly “weird, ” bizarre and frightening, in the view of the rest of the world. The results are very sad and very funny. In a nutshell, most of the world thinks we’ve gone batshit crazy. “Tsarists and Nazis and spooks, oh my!”
Although James Jesus Angleton was Gehlen’s alleged supervisor, data indicates that the Gehlenapparat engaged in many activities, including kidnapping, extortion, murder etc. about which Angleton either did not know or devoutly did not want to know.
But James J. Angleton was a pathological case of some sort himself; he often hid his middle name because it revealed his half-Hispanic genes. An exceptionally intelligent and sensitive student of modern literature while at Yale, Angleton adored Ezra Pound, Wallace Stevens, I.A. Richards, e e cummings and other SuperStars of Modernism; he met most of them personally. They collectively influenced Angleton’s fascination with multiple perspectives, labyrinthine ambiguity and the eternal uncertainty of all inferences and “interpretations.” These modernist tendencies, which also appeared in science and philosophy at the same time, blossomed into obsessions and, perhaps, raging madness when Angleton systematically applied them to the spy-game. After all, modernism really begins with Wilde’s “The Reality of Masks” and Yeats’s hermetic mystique the world we know emerging from interactions of Mask, Anti-Mask, Self, and Anti-Self: which may or may not fit all of us or all the world but certainly fits the world of spooks and snoops that Angleton created.
Another CIA officer, Edward Petty, described Angleton as “a lone wolf” and “a strange bird”; every other source I have found bluntly calls him “paranoid.” He suspected everybody else in the CIA, and in “our” government generally, of being KGB moles, and operated with so much modernist ambiguity and hidden trapdoors that, in Petty’s words, “nobody really knows” what he was doing most of the time. In short, he became as esoteric as the poets he admired, and remade the C.I.A. and, increasingly, our whole nation into a theatre of impenetrable mystery.
A.J. Weberman, a leading Kennedy assassination buff, thinks Angleton personally organized the JFK hit, an idea also strongly hinted at by Norman Mailer’s documentary novel, Harlot’s Ghost, in which Angleton appears as “Hugh Montague.” [Angleton’s father was named Hugh; Angleton’s code name was “Mother,” and Montague’s is “Harlot.”Work on that, ye seekers of multiple meaning. ]
If James Jesus really arranged the JFK assassination, he had probably decided that Kennedy was the top Soviet mole of all.
Why not? Angleton had Tsarist agents in all sorts of nooks of the Soviet system, and he knew the KGB was smart enough and tireless enough to reciprocate by planting their own Masks and Anti-Masks in his own backyard, or maybe under his bed at night. According to Edward Jay Epstein, J.J.A.s endless search for Soviet moles nearly destroyed the C.I.A. itself. Certainly, everybody in “the Company” learned to distrust everybody else.
Imagine a U.S. Caine with not one Queeg as captain, but a whole crew of Queegs, each worrying about what the others might be plotting. Angleton created that ship of shape-shifters in the C.I.A. and then by osmosis it spread through the government, evolving into the TSOG.
In short, the government cannot trust us, because it can never know with absolute certainty what mischief we may hatch; and every sentence we speak into a bugged phone may have as many possible meanings as Eliot’s “The rose and the fire are one.”
In William F. Buckley Jr.’s docu-novel Spytime: The Undoing of James Jesus Angleton occurs a scene that epiphanizes the TSOG’s looped and relooped logic. Angleton and an associate discuss 17 or 37 possible interpretations of a bit of information [or disinformation] passed on by a possible Soviet defector [who might be a Soviet mole.] At the end of the discussion, J.J.A. points out one more “reading” that the associate hadn’t considered: namely, that Angleton himself might be the top Soviet mole of all. You can’t learn more about ambiguity and irony in a seminar on the poetry of Empson.
In the same vein, after the death by drowning of “Montague”[Angleton] in Harlot’s Ghost, the CIA systematically investigates such alternative scenarios as: he’s not dead, and another water-rotted corpse has been foisted on them; the Soviets did it and have him full of truth serums already; he went over to the Soviets willingly; he was working for the Reds all along.
“Trust No One,” the motto of X Files, seems the only safe rule in the world Angleton created.

T.S.O.G.
The Creature That Ate the Constitution
by Robert Anton Wilson
more ?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 11 2007 19:46 utc | 18

Bureaucratic musical chairs, as if structure could change substance.
Toot toot!
Big corps do this regularly and the shareholders clap!
They eat a few biscuits, down a glass of white (cheap plonk, here in CH) nod wisely and go off on their merry or decrepit way.
🙂

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 11 2007 20:41 utc | 19

Bush to outsource commander-in-chief responsibilities

Hello? My name is Prakesh:
I am to being your new Commander in Chief. I am conducting this task from our Commander Center in Bombay. We are advising you to reboot your Iraqi Freedom.
Have you brought your troops home yet? Do that first and call us again if you are continue to have the troubles and – have the nice day.*

Damn, I hate being right
*Not very pc, but I thought it was funny..

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 11 2007 20:49 utc | 20

ot, but where the hell did all the commenters go? Where is Monolycus and the ever funny Dr. Wellington Yueh and the Amazon gurls…et al…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 11 2007 21:00 utc | 21

Czar Smarz! Where’s my oil?

Posted by: gus | Apr 11 2007 21:07 utc | 22

uncle
thinking of that madman james jesus angelton i am reminded that he was suckered big & grand in the first instance – he was felled by the knowledge & charm of kim philby
& i am reminded also that this is the one thing in which the british have excelled – betrayal
i adored them – when colonel philby wrote his memoir ‘my secret life’ – i was like graham greene moved deeply – i was fascinated as a youth by these wilderness of mirrors but hopefully in a differerent way than angleton – i am still in wonder at the fact that from 1935 – 1975 the kgb ran what the british so uncarefully called their secret service. sir roger hollis for example was clearly also working for moscow centre
the not so secret service was run bt agents of the kgb or the gpu or were madmen like angleton who understood as much of the world as i know about orchids – but the monster dulles, colby helms &on & on have led finally to the mediocrities of cheney of hadley of feith of bolton small men with big appetites but absolutely no brains whatsoever
the new czar will be like that chickenfarmer himmler who finally rose to lead an army on the eastern front (that is when it had arrived at berlin’s door) for about six days then went to the sick bed suffering from the flu & constan diahhrea
they are caricatures of caricatures. they are all a stale joke told badly to an audience more interested in the perameters of anna nicole smiths womb

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 11 2007 22:32 utc | 23

This is frightening, and insane (from the Fisk @14):

“The only chance the American military has to withdraw with any kind of tactical authority in the future is to take substantial casualties as a token of their respect for the situation created by the invasion,” he said.
“The effort to create some order out of the chaos and the willingness to take casualties to do so will leave some residual respect for the Americans as they leave.”

This from a man whose son is an officer in Iraq. How many troops must be sacrificed to obtain that “respect”?

Posted by: PeeDee | Apr 11 2007 22:58 utc | 24

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for creating respect; but wouldn’t an immediate withdrawal, substantial reparations, and war-crime trials of those civilians responsible for the invasion policy and war-profiteering be a better solution all around? Somehow I don’t think the grunts are just going to sit on grenades; and I really don’t think we need more Iraqis dead in the name of American “respect”.
Sometimes this world is so weird.

Posted by: PeeDee | Apr 11 2007 23:30 utc | 25

No hope of change until the PSAs get signed.

Posted by: Pyrrho | Apr 12 2007 1:06 utc | 26

Just for starters, maybe for reparations for Fallujah the US should cede to the Iraqi people Twenty-Nine Palms and Camp Pendelton Marine Corps bases. For Abu Graib, some large chunk of West Virginia. Kennebunkport, Crawford, Jackson Hole,..

Posted by: biklett | Apr 12 2007 2:00 utc | 27

Howcome nobody’s thought of Bernie Kerik? He’s tailor-made for the job.

Posted by: Dena | Apr 12 2007 5:02 utc | 28

reminds me of a show on tv where a couple brings in a super-nanny from England to help manage their out-of-control kids.
well, the kids more or less laughed at her till she started taking away their toys.
she’s probably going to ask for a pretty big “impound yard” somewhere behind the White House if she accepts this gig.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Apr 12 2007 5:51 utc | 29

NYTimes
Here’s an article about the “Czar” that doesn’t merely show how delusional, or publind, or cowardly the journalists purporting to cover the Bush administration’s foreign adventures have become (or always were, or always will be).
True, in the sweetest and most sympathetic terms, it tells us that a total disaster has occurred (thereby qualifying it as an exercise in journalism, as opposed the hallucinations of a columnist). And true, it also rather defiantly refuses to place any blame on anyone–thereby reassuring the folks in power that the submissive loyalty of the Times is hardly open to challenge. But we’ve come to expect this. We know how to read the Times….
Or do we?
I mean, here’s an article that never mentions the name, the office, or the actions of the Vice-President and his colleagues. Not a single word. Nothing. It’s as if one described the solar system without mentioning that thing we call “the sun”…. This omission is not just an ideological gesture, or an act of routine duplicity in the style of Judith Miller. It’s something else; it’s as if the reporter had completely lost his mind….
Has he, I wonder, really lost his mind? If so, when did this happen? How? Was it a sudden psychotic break? The prose itself is sufficiently clear, and hardly symptomatic of the specific problem….
Reading this piece is creepy–like happening upon a suicide that can’t be stopped. A mind, or a life, has been destroyed–the mind or the life of a certain “David Sanger”–and there’s nothing left for us to do except to bury the corpse and publish the obituary.
Or can we pay him, perhaps, an occasional visit at the mental institution serving as his home? True, he may be overmedicated, and if so, then we can’t do much to cheer him up, but at least we can say that we gave it a generous try…..

Posted by: alabama | Apr 12 2007 6:31 utc | 30

alabama,
Sanger is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Strategy Group.
aspens which “turn in clusters because their roots connect them,” ..

Posted by: dan of steele | Apr 12 2007 7:02 utc | 31

Alabama, did you happen to catch that eye-popper story about NYT during Davos? You could have missed it. It was published in NYT’s Israeli cousin – Haaretz. It stated that Morgan-Stanley is trying to Sulzie removed.

Posted by: jj | Apr 12 2007 7:04 utc | 32

From the article Alabama linked to some juciy quotes from Gates:

At a news conference, Mr. Gates offered a public endorsement for the idea of empowering someone at the White House to better carry out the president’s priorities. “This person is not ‘running the war,’ ” Mr. Gates said. “This ‘czar’ term is, I think, kind of silly.”
Instead, he said, “this is what Steve Hadley would do if Steve Hadley had the time, but he doesn’t have the time to do it full time.”

I wonder how that can be described by Sanger as “public endorsement” …

Posted by: b | Apr 12 2007 7:10 utc | 33

dan of steele–I guess I’m a little shocked by what you’re saying about dear old “Aspen”, and the immortal “Council”…..Or are they Sanger’s graveyard, or maybe Sanger’s madhouse? ….jj, I missed the story about the Times trying to unload Pinch, and any links would be welcome (or I can simply google it)…..and b, this piece is obviously a plant intended to take the pulse of various honchos…but for whose benefit, I wonder? Not mine, not yours…..

Posted by: alabama | Apr 12 2007 7:39 utc | 34

Re: # 23
I hear ya loud and clear, R’giap.
Imagine being stuck in theater of this horror show. And the madness one feels knowing all these atrocious tidbits of the on going mindfuck, whilst
everyone around you is either oblivious or in self induced oblivion. I wish I could be so removed. Perhaps, ignorance really is bliss.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 12 2007 7:46 utc | 35

Alabama, I forgot where I saw it, but while I missed it on Haaretz site, the site on which I did see it included copy of entire Haaretz page. But you misread my post. i did Not say that the Times was trying to dump him. It’s worse than that. I said that it said that Morgan-Stanley, the Bank, is trying to force him out. If you put that together w/the forced sale of McClatchey, the sole outfit w/a first-rate Baghdad bureau, which came about because an unnamed stockholder or two forced the sale, you see we are in a new day in newspaper industry. They are being driven directly now by Wall Street.

Posted by: jj | Apr 12 2007 8:05 utc | 36

jj, I can only learn…. I never knew it was otherwise!

Posted by: alabama | Apr 12 2007 15:52 utc | 37

@jj – that story is a bit longer:
New York Times Families Withdraw Morgan Stanley Funds

The New York Times Co.’s Sulzberger and Ochs families withdrew most of their assets from Morgan Stanley after a fund manager criticized their control of the publisher.
The families moved investments including their $690 million stake in the company to another institution, Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for the New York Times, said today in an e-mailed statement. Mathis wouldn’t say how much is being withdrawn.
Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. is retaliating against public pressure from Hassan Elmasry, a managing director at Morgan Stanley’s investment arm, to relinquish the share structure that gives the families a majority of the board at the third-largest U.S. newspaper publisher.

The families control the New York Times through Class B shares, which have a 1 percent economic interest in the company yet carry the right to elect nine of 13 board members. The Class A shares, owned by others including Morgan Stanley, elect the other four directors.

The Morgan Stanley funds are the New York Times’s fifth- largest shareholder with more than 7 percent of the stock. Morgan Stanley also holds stakes in Gannett Co. and Tribune Co., the largest U.S. newspaper publishers.

Posted by: b | Apr 12 2007 17:24 utc | 38

“this is what Steve Hadley would do if Steve Hadley had the time, but he doesn’t have the time to do it full time.”
lol, maybe it would be a little easier to replace hadley’s job. that would free him up to be the new czar.

Posted by: annie | Apr 12 2007 17:30 utc | 39

An update: In White House Plan, War ‘Czar’ Would Cut Through Bureaucracy

Under the proposal by national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, the execution manager would talk daily with the military commanders and U.S. ambassadors in Iraq and Afghanistan. The official would then meet with Bush each morning to review developments. The goal to meet requests for support by Petraeus and others would be “same-day service,” the proposal said.
So far, the White House has had trouble finding someone to fill the new assignment. At least five retired four-star generals have declined to be considered. Since The Post disclosed the plan this week, many Democrats and former military officers have blasted the idea as a misguided reorganization or as an abrogation of presidential responsibility.
“Standing up a war czar is just throwing in another layer of bureaucracy,” retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the Army’s 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, told reporters yesterday. “Excuse me — we have a chain of command already and it’s time for our leaders to step up and take charge.”

Any volunteers for execution manager?

Posted by: b | Apr 13 2007 6:44 utc | 40

Thanks b-. Great Find. The Haaretz art. was much shorter w/out that detail. That’s the standard way of protecting family control. Given that, it’s surprising they’re not exercising greater editorial independence since strictly speaking they’re not entirely under Wall St. Control.

Posted by: jj | Apr 13 2007 7:18 utc | 41

COMMENTARY
By Jack Jacobs
Military analyst
MSNBC
Updated: 11:43 p.m. ET April 12, 2007
Jack Jacobs
Military analyst
Earlier this week, there was a vague, unsubstantiated report that the White House has been exploring the notion of creating a senior position to oversee the conduct of the conflicts in Southwest Asia. Ostensibly, this slot would be filled by a retired military officer, and, not surprisingly, the media dubbed him the “War Czar.”
This astounding report has since been confirmed, and the sheer stupidity of it is staggering.

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 13 2007 19:29 utc | 42

r’giap – 42 – that Jack Jackobs column is simply stupid.
Jacob says the war zar is something like a commader in chief and already existing in the job of the Secretary of Defense.
Bullshit:
First: The commander in chief is the president, not the SecDef.
Second: The issue is not about coordinating soldiers but about coordinating agencies – Defense, State, Commerce, etc. That is – by US law- the task of the National Security Council and the National Security Advisor. It’s Hadley’s job.
To say the SecDef should be in command is exactly the Rumsfeld/Cheney line. They did discard any State participation in the occupation and of course also the NSC participation.
Yes, the “sheer stupidity of it is staggering”, as is Jacobs argumentation.

Posted by: b | Apr 13 2007 20:00 utc | 43

yr right b, i think i was just trying to show that even amongst the paid vassals of this criminal administration – they are not capable of not being confronted by its collossal stupidity

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 13 2007 20:44 utc | 44