Seems to me like they want to create a position to oversee the war. Isn't that what Bush's job is? Sounds like a scapegoat position to me. I don't think creating yet another tax-payer funded position is the correct approach to the problem. But what do I know, I'm not part of the white house.
Here's the story from the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001776_pf.html
2007-04-12 04:29:43 · 6 answers · asked by trer 3 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
When I heard that yesterday, I thought "Isn't that a fancy way of saying Commander in Chief?" It just furthers my own personal theory that he wants to shift the blame when everything falls apart (even more than it already has) before he leaves office. You are absolutely right. The good thing is, so far, he has NOT ONE taker on the idea.
2007-04-12 04:39:16 · answer #1 · answered by ppaper.wingss 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is a lazy fool. His plan to invade Afganistan then Iraq came back to bite him on the ***. He wants someone else to take some of the blame by creating that position.
2007-04-12 11:35:51 · answer #2 · answered by JustAGothChick 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We already have a Secretary of War (now called Secretary of Defense.)
And his (could be her) job isn't national defense, we have secretary of National Security for that. Oh and a Security of Homeland Security too.
2007-04-12 11:33:57 · answer #3 · answered by Vegan 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like a place to put another of his buddies who get paid a lot, do nothing, and take no responsibility for their actions!
2007-04-12 11:37:43 · answer #4 · answered by Wounded Duck 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it already existed they just can't find a soul that wants it 5 ppl already turned it down
2007-04-12 11:33:34 · answer #5 · answered by slayerofthedarkforest 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
is he finally admitting he is not up to the job.??
2007-04-12 21:51:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋