I realize this is a bit outdated, but really sums up the issue quite succinctly:
The White House says it wants to appoint a high-powered official to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and issue directions to the Pentagon and the State Department. This person would be called "the president of the United States."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You know, when people write lol, they are rarely doing it. This last statement truly had me laughing out loud in my office.
You are SO right!
They actually appointed him - I think I heard it yesterday morning. I felt like there was something wrong with it when I heard the news but didn't have time to contemplate.
This was great!
Exception-
THanks, I am glad you got a chuckle of this too.
It almost seems as if the decider, the unifier is trying to become the distancer and moving away from these debacles tht he has gotten us into.
The only other precedent I can see is to George Marshall, who I believe was FDR's Chief of Staff, who oversaw both theatres of war (Europe and Asia) during WWII, but I could be wrong.
Yes, I couldn't believe it either when they actually got someone to agree to be War Czar. "Humor" is a good choice of keyword for your post!
There was a reason for a George Marshall back then, but now? Yes, it sounds like the decider is trying to become the distancer.
Seev,
It is humor, because I lifted it from someone's humorous quotes of the day a few weeks back, but the scary part is it borders more on satire or serious commentary more than humor.
What was the reason we needed Marshall then and we don't need Lute now? Can you please elaborate?
Thanks for the comment
Jeff
Post a Comment