Can this possibly be true?
In an otherwise well researched and tightly argued Slate article on the Cheney Cabal's venal decision to underfund US soldiers' Hummer armor, Eric Umansky posits the following:
"[...] armor kits are procurement, not operational, items—that is, durable goods [...]"
Wait: how can armor kits be considered durable goods? They're designed to be hit by enemy ordinance!
On the lighter side, we enjoyed the bit at the end about the army reservist stationed in Baghdad who Gerry-rigged his Hummer with homemade armor and '[d]ubbed [it] the "Butler Mobile" after his last name.'
But wouldn't it have been, y'know, funnier if he had decided to call it the "Ba'athmobile"?
No comments:
Post a Comment