Debunking Some Serious Concern Trolling

UPDATED, 8:52AM, to correct some errors:

With thanks to commenter GHFarber, let me correct some aspects of this post and make it a little clearer.

I am criticizing the tone and the subject of a "forum" post by William Arkin, who, according to some research I did this morning, has actually done some good work that I agree with. I just take exception to what I feel is concern trolling or giving stupid advice to Barack Obama with the way he kicked off this forum. His work on this forum likely is not under the control of any editor at the Washington Post but is likely managed by an online editor at the washingtonpost.com.

My original statement: The unhinged and misinformed crowd at the Washington Post finally gets a new editor soon--hopefully one that actually understands the world. I've had enough of the Len Downie era. I've had more than my fair share of Fred Hiatt. And in checking their ridiculous "forums" section, I find this:

...was wrong--Downie was, and Hiatt is currently, part of a chain that answers to management, but they are likely considered co-equals or near co-equals because the Washington Post keeps OpEd separate from News. I have high hopes that the tenor and tone of the content at the Washington Post will improve, but my high hopes, like this post, are probably going to crash by noon today.

The intended goal of the Washington Post company is to more closely meld their online edition with the print edition and trim costs; that's why they are cutting staff, getting rid of Downie, and trying to update their business model. Their coverage during the primary and over the last few months has been dismal in my estimation and has always been rather awful when it comes to the war in Iraq or issues like the outing of CIA employee Valerie Plame. I was making a clumsy effort to criticize that history when I should have been more specific. I apologize for the generalities when specifics would have been better.

---back to original post:
Arkin starts the discussion with:

Is Barack Obama already shooting himself in the foot as commander-in-chief?…

That's how moderator William Arkin proposes to kick off a discussion about Obama's sit-down interview with the Military Times group of newspapers. By engaging in some serious wankery and concern trolling.

Let's go point by ridiculous point:

In a long interview by the Military Times newspapers, the candidate shows a deference to the uniformed military, a humility that he associates with his lack of service in uniform but one that could also backfire as Clintonian weakness – Bill Clinton that is.

Blatant wankery, that statement. Get this--Barack Obama is being criticized for showing "deference" to the uniformed military. Can you imagine a similar criticism of President Bush? Of President Reagan? Of the first President Bush? Men who deferred to their military advisors on a daily basis. Can you imagine a first President Bush calling out Colin Powell and saying "he's wrong, and I'm not deferring to him--we're going to do this MY way." Can you imagine Ronald Reagan standing up in the Rose Garden and saying "the Joint Chiefs are idiots--I say, we bomb the Soviets tomorrow!" I can't imagine President Bush the younger saying anything at all--I've blocked out the nightmare of the syntax. You get the drift.

And how did Clinton's record turn out? How many fucking quagmires did he lead us into?

“I have always said that as commander in chief, I would seek the advice and counsel of our generals,” Obama said in the interview. “Great. The inmates will be running the asylum,” an insider tells me.

How denigrating. Someone, anonymously, says that the senior leadership of the US military are "inmates" running an "asylum." If that's the case, why isn't anyone doing anything about it? Why is there not panic? Could it be that those "inmates" rightly rebelled against Don Rumsfeld--a man not known for showing deference or humility to people who demonstrated they knew better--got in line behind Bob Gates and stopped a foolish war with Iran? Could it be that the "inmates" saved America without anyone realizing it? Tune in 25 years from now to find out.

Talk about concern trolling--asking Obama to not be deferential to the uniformed military is asinine. Well, if he isn't deferential, then the next thing you'll say is that he's a loose cannon who is ignoring the experts and conducting unilateral military operations without benefit of their wise counsel. Which is it then? Defer or seek counsel? How about--shut the fuck up?

Withdrawal from Iraq, his own surge in Afghanistan, dealing with the Bush legacy on Iran and Pakistan, missile defenses in Europe, increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps despite his Iraq withdrawal pledge, a bloated and voracious defense budget, the outsourcing of defense, the intelligence mess, China and Russia:

Funny--where's the criticism of THIS administration? Where's the criticism of John McCain and his inability to tell the players apart from one another? Where's the criticism of his "tell people to knock this shit off" clown-cowboy approach to problem solving? Where's the realization that these weren't issues in 2000. You know. When Clinton was President? I mean, if Clinton was such a bad Commander in Chief, how the fuck did he have none of those issues on his plate, peace in the Balkans, a framework for dealing with North Korea, Saddam contained, Iran as a non-issue, Israel and the Palestinians talking, China talking to Taiwan, Russia in a coffin militarily and impotent, Europe ready to meet its NATO obligations, and Osama Bin Laden running like crazy from Sudan to Afghanistan, trying to evade capture? Today, we have Russia and China surging, no diplomacy in the Middle East, Bush's campaign promise in 2000 to get us out of the Balkans unfulfilled, North Korea contained solely because of Christopher Hill's efforts to undo the damage of the Bush Administration, Pakistan providing safe haven for Bin Laden and the Taliban, and 140,000 US troops trapped in Iraq while Afghanistan spins out of control?

When Clinton left office, we still had a military. When Bush leaves office, we won't have but a hollow shell of what once was, with hundreds of thousands of men and women needing medical and mental care that no one bothered to provide for. Which was the Commander in Chief and which was the idiot savant, minus the savant part?

What does the candidate tell us that is his new innovation? He says he wants to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Yeah, let’s spend the first year of a new administration fighting about this again

It's about time--hey, the military needs all the men and women it can get. Obama has a plan to increase the number of men and women who can serve their country. McCain has a plan to put them in Iraq for a hundred fucking years. Who's more qualified to be Commander in Chief? Especially since fat, pink, young Republican males simply haven't stepped up and asked to join the military.

Concern trolling and wankery. Hopefully, the Washington Post can eliminate some of that, and soon.

Crass and Tasteless--Kathleen Parker at the Washington Post

There is simply no way--no way--an article like this about John McCain and Joe Lieberman would ever get published anywhere in this country:

Well, at least they didn't kiss.

I was bracing myself for the lip lock Wednesday when John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama.

Don't look at me. David "Mudcat" Saunders, Edwards's former rural adviser, came up with the idea, saying Obama should kiss Edwards on the lips "to kill this 41-point loss," referring to Hillary Clinton's landslide victory in the West Virginia primary.

Instead, the two men exchanged a manly air-hug to commemorate the moment when Edwards threw Clinton under the upholstered sofa on his grandmama's front porch.

As Edwards gave what amounted to a stump speech highlighting his favorite subject -- John Edwards -- Americans were reminded of why the North Carolina son-of-a-millworker won't be their presidential nominee.

[SNIP]

Obama and Edwards make an attractive picture -- Ultra Brite cover boys of youth and glamour united against old men (and women) who worship the status quo. Obama -- the man who makes Chris Matthews feel a thrill up his leg -- wants to "do the Lord's work," lately pictured in front of a cross illuminated with vanity lights on a flier aimed at Kentucky voters, while Edwards wants to roll out the catapults and nuke the Coliseum.

[SNIP]

While we're waiting to find out, Edwards's tortured Southern shtick is supposed to help Obama with the demographic of white, rural, working-class (non-college) Americans he's been having trouble with. Green room translation: poor, ignorant racists.

Presumably, Edwards knows how to relate to these folks, given his heritage and his years as a trial lawyer representing the little people against corporate America. Notwithstanding his 28,000-square-foot house and $400 haircuts. And ignoring the fact that one reason health insurance rates are so high -- and that so many poor rural folks lack high-quality medical care -- is the success Edwards and other trial lawyers have in convincing jurors that doctors owe the world always-perfect results.

His medical malpractice specialty often focused on OB-GYNs, and his multimillion-dollar awards resulted more from emotion than science. Edwards's underappreciated acting skills, including an uncanny ability to channel the voice of a dead child, helped raise malpractice premiums so high that many OB-GYNs have fled the profession.

[SNIP]

Which puts new thoughts in motion as voters project down the road. Obama and Edwards look and talk pretty, but Clinton, unflinching and steely, exudes pure brawn. When the time comes to sit across from the likes of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a chill in the heart may beat a thrill up the leg.

It is impossible to adequately respond to a column which juxtaposes homophobia, bile, and obvious denigration with snark and vitriol. This column has no redeeming quality, nothing that informs and nothing that even hints of originality. It is hate disguised as frivolous fun and it has no place in any newspaper. The only place where such sentiment could come from is within Washington D.C., within a cloistered, shuttered village full of people who do not understand that there are Americans who are hurting, that there are people looking for change and for real discussion of where the country needs to go, and who simply do not care whether or not Kathleen Parker gets any "juice" out of writing such a thinly disguised diatribe against people who really do "get" it and who really are trying to take the country forward.

Kathleen Parker is simply a low rent version of Maureen Dowd, who is as low rent as one can get.

The Washington Post Editorial Page Blows Chunks

I can't think of good headlines. But the WaPo's editorial page really, really sucks when they write stuff like this:

THE FIFTH anniversary of the invasion of Iraq prompted a flurry of speeches from President Bush and the Democratic candidates who hope to inherit the White House next year. Sadly, what they had in common was their failure to grapple with hard realities -- beginning with the elusiveness of any clear or quick path toward Mr. Bush's promise of "victory," or that of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to "end this war."

Mr. Bush's address dwelt on the success of the initial military campaign of March 2003, then skipped ahead to the "surge" of the last year. The president deservedly claimed credit for launching the latter campaign, which has drastically reduced the level of violence in Iraq. But he went on to claim that, more than turning "the situation in Iraq around," the surge "has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror." That sounded at best premature, given the tenuousness of the security gains and the slowness of Iraqi leaders to strike political deals that could truly stabilize the country.

First of all, you'd have to be completely ignorant to assert that the surge has "dramatically" reduced the violence. Paying the Sunnis off with guns and money and keeping the Mahdi Army from reconstituting itself was what did the trick. "Surging" in more troops simply put more strain on our military. That's good strategy? Giving guns and money to the people who were killing us and making more troops spend more time in Iraq?

Second of all, there's been no political reconciliation. Hence, the surge has not succeeded. All that work for nothing.

The president at least recognizes, from "hard experience," how quickly progress in Iraq can unravel. Yesterday he pledged not to order troop withdrawals beyond the five brigades due to return home by this summer unless "conditions on the ground and the recommendations of our commanders" warrant it. That means that if Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton become president, he or she will be the commander in chief of at least 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Yet their speeches suggest an understanding of the conflict and the stakes for the United States that is as detached from reality as they accuse Mr. Bush of being when he decided on the invasion.

What progress? When was there ever "progress" or success after Baghdad fell? The country went immediately into a tailspin of violence and looting. Once there was nothing left to steal, nationalism kicked in. Iraqis were embarrassed that their country had collapsed in front of the American Army. The Fedayeen Saddam kicked in almost immediately and began attacking US convoys. From there, we went from destroying Fallujah to staging elections with CIA help to flooding the country with the incompetent kids of Republican Party donors.

The idea that there will only be "100,000" troops in Iraq is laughable. Even Petraeus is making noises that if 30-40,000 troops were to be pulled out, the fragile hold they have on things would collapse.

Barely acknowledging the reduction in violence, the Democratic candidates insist that U.S. troops are, as Ms. Clinton put it, "babysitting a civil war." In fact, the surge forestalled an incipient civil war, and U.S. commanders and diplomats in Iraq don't hesitate to say that if American forces withdrew now, sectarian conflict would probably explode in its full fury, causing bloodshed on a far greater scale than ever before and posing grave threats to U.S. security.

Forestalled? That's insane. We watched ritualized ethnic cleansing for over a year. We watched as they killed their neighbors and drove millions into exile. We then turned around and helped wall off enclaves to try to stem the tide. Really, does the WaPo editorial page read its own reporting?

How can we say that sectarian conflict will explode? Seen the news? It HAS already exploded. It CONTINUES to explode. Therefore, when it happens in the future, we won't have US troops as a convenient target. You see, by aligning ourselves with one side, we become the target of the other side in a sectarian conflict. To suggest that all of sudden the Shia and Sunni will start to fight when we leave is to argue from a position of ignorance only someone like Bill Kristol could appreciate.

BOTH Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton propose withdrawing U.S. troops at the most rapid pace the Pentagon says is possible -- one brigade a month. In the 16 months or so it would take to remove those forces, they envision the near-miraculous accomplishment of every political goal the Bush administration has aimed at for five years, from the establishment of a stable government to agreement by Iraq's neighbors to support it. They suppose that the knowledge that American forces were leaving would inspire these accords. In fact, it more likely would cause all sides to discount U.S. influence and prepare to violently seize the space left by the departing Americans.

Well, the quickest way to get them to reconcile their differences is to start leaving the Green Zone undefended. If the elite in Iraq want to continue being safe and secure, they'll damned sure stop fighting each other and they'll stop jockeying for position.

See, modern Iraq is just one long sectarian-based negotiation with guns and bombs to get as much leverage as possible. If that means a minor ministry, so be it. If that means a few bombs across town going off, so be it. They're not going to stop--no matter how many US troops occupy the country--trying to get as much power and leverage as they can. We enable them to do so. We provide just enough security to ensure that they can fight each other. When they attack our troops, it sends a signal to all observers--look what we can do to the Americans. Look how we can attack them. We are powerful. We do what you can't, and that is, kill Americans to preserve the dignity of the Iraqi people. Join us so we can drive out the Americans and make Iraq great again. That's what they're saying through what they do.

With equal implausibility, the Democratic candidates say they would leave limited U.S. forces behind to prevent al-Qaeda from establishing bases. They assume that an Iraqi government that had just been abandoned by the United States would consent to the continued presence of American forces on its territory. In all, Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama speak as if they have no understanding of Iraqi leaders, whom they propose to treat as willing puppets.

The Iraqi leadership are puppets only because our military power and our CIA intervention and our tens of thousands of contractors relegate them to that status. There is virtually no way to counter such disgusting wingnuttery on the editorial page--none. Once you start arguing that al Qaeda might take over Iraq and establish bases, every reasonable argument falls flat in the face of such delusional thought. It's the last refuge of the scoundrels. They know that will never happen. They know that, at it's peak, AQI was accounting for 5-10% of all attacks, and that was in the days of Zarqawi.

Here's how ridiculous that argument is--after we killed Zarqawi, the pattern of violence was unchanged. We spent all that time and effort going after a minor thug while the country burned. To now wave the "AQI" threat around is dishonest wingnuttery. We are in the middle of a civil war. We are not fighting "international Islamic Terrorism" in Iraq. We're creating more of it.

If there was a glimmer of sense in Mr. Obama's speech, it lay in his acknowledgment that "we will have to make tactical adjustments, listening to our commanders on the ground, to ensure that our interests in a stable Iraq are met and to make sure our troops are secure." Ms. Clinton conceded that "the critical question is how we can end this war responsibly" and added "it won't be easy." In fact it will be terribly hard -- and it can't be done responsibly in the way or on the timeline the two Democrats are proposing. We can only hope that, behind their wildly unrealistic campaign rhetoric, the candidates understand that reality.

No, Obama or Clinton are just riding this out. They don't want to sit and listen to every neocon that the US media enables. They don't want to use up all of their time responding to people like Richard Perle and John Bolton and Michael O'Hanlon--men who were wrong five years ago, wrong every day since then, and so wrong now as to be laughable. Who needs it?

Once a Democrat wins, they'll pull troops out of Iraq in order to please the base that gets them elected and they'll do so because they don't want to continue bankrupting this country while draping the Iraq war across their shoulders.

No one--and I mean no one--is going to bail George Bush out this time.

Read the whole thing...

Yeah, I know. I should have excised some points and been a blogger. Fuck that. Read the whole thing:

By John Rogers
Sunday, March 16, 2008; Page B01

I'm a captain in the U.S. Army, an institution I love and respect, and one that has made me a better man. The Army has taught me how to relate to people of various ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic classes. It has taught me how to stay calm under fire and in other stressful situations (an especially handy lesson as my fiancee and I plan our wedding). It has taught me how to exact discipline and how to approach people with different personalities in different ways.

All these lessons will, I'm convinced, make me a better friend, a better husband and, one day, a better father.

But after four years, I've decided to resign my commission and leave the Army.

This isn't what I envisioned when I joined up in 2004 as a 24-year-old college graduate. I hoped to spend at least eight years in the service, maybe more. I wanted to lead troops in combating terrorism and making our home front safe. I wanted to command a company, something you can achieve in about six to eight years. Instead, come April 1, I'll take off my uniform for good and become a civilian again.

And I'm not alone. Many other captains I know are making the same decision, or considering it. Let me be clear: I'm not a spokesman for some mythical "United Bureau of Captains Leaving the Army." But as I've talked with other captains, attended conferences with superiors on this issue and listened to my peers' reactions to what I've written here, I've heard a collective echo arising from the ranks of captains who are leaving. My reasons for this decision strike a chord with many of them.

Those reasons are threefold: First, I'm about to get married, and I want a family. Second, I can earn as much or more in the civilian world as I do in the Army. And finally, my experience with war has left me feeling angry, frustrated and mismanaged.

I've lost confidence that I can serve both a wife and the Army. It's not that my fiancee is putting demands on me; this is a conclusion I've reached on my own. Staying in would mean six months of Army schooling in the Captain Career Course. We'd have to move from Seattle to Georgia or Kentucky. My wife would have to quit her job to be with me. Then I'd move again to a deploying unit or become an adviser to the Iraqi army for another 12 to 15 months. My wife would be uprooted and replanted in a place where she'd be alone, knowing no one, and without the job she loves. She'd be unable to pursue her goals or use her talents. That's no recipe for marital bliss.

Also, soldiers need to train, so I'd spend a lot of time away in the field -- at weapons ranges or training centers, or fighting simulated battles. A marriage needs time to blossom. But a captain's career path, whether he's deployed or at home, can bulldoze it before it blooms. And deploying every other year raises certain obvious challenges to starting a family.

As it happens, I have (a very beautiful) someone. But not all soldiers do, and many of them would like that to change. Where staying in for me means not having the time to develop a relationship, for others it means not having the time to find one. Then there are situations like that of one captain I know who has a son who's nearly 4. He missed the baby's birth and has been present in his boy's life for a total of one year. I hope you can see why I, and others like me, feel that we have to choose: family or Army. Each person's situation may be different, but we're all in the same shoes . . . and they stink.

Second, I feel no financial pressure to "stay Army." I'm confident that I'll be able to land a job that pays enough to cover a mortgage and put food on the table. Placement firms such as Cameron-Brooks, Lucas Group and Orion have good records in helping former officers find positions in the corporate world. Most captains have college degrees and know that they can get a job outside the Army and begin a new profession. We find phrases such as "stock options," "incentives" or "no firearms permitted in the building" enticing. We like the idea of promotion based on merit, not a timeline. Some want to work for the FBI or the CIA, agencies they believe are more effective in the fight against terrorism.

An initial drop in salary won't hurt me, even if I have to pay for medical coverage. Besides, money isn't my motivation for serving -- which is why I find no incentive in the Army's $25,000 to $35,000 bonus for staying in.

Finally, I'm frustrated by the war and how I was managed and blocked in doing my job in Iraq. Take the following incident. It's not the only one I could hang my hat on, but it's the most pointed.

My mission as a platoon leader was to clean up police corruption and reintegrate the Iraqi police into the security structure of Ghazaliyah, a district in western Baghdad. Over time, my platoon built a relationship of trust with Iraqi policemen, who gave us leads on insurgents. On one patrol, we detained a Sunni whom our battalion's intelligence officer confirmed as a genuine criminal. This man had threatened local residents, preventing them from participating in a clinic we had restarted.

A search of his home yielded illegal weapons, sniper bullets, insurgent propaganda, gobs of money and lists of Iraqi political and military officials' addresses. When we learned that he was the leading Sunni insurgent in Ghazaliyah, our platoon felt like world-beaters. Morale surged. Finding this man validated counterinsurgency theory -- empowering indigenous forces, patiently letting them take the lead, and collecting intelligence through local and national networks that know the "human terrain" better than foreign armies. It taught my men to be patient with it, and gave them pride.

Moreover, a change came over our counterparts in the Iraqi police. You could see their hope awakening. They began to feel safe in giving us the names of corrupt policemen and police car numbers. We secretly built a case against their leader (which this very newspaper inadvertently exposed in late 2006 when it published the full name of my Iraqi confidante, creating even more stress for my troops.)

So, good grab, right? Wrong. We later had to release the detainee. Somehow the evidence to hold him was lacking -- even though he had discussed his role in sectarian violence under questioning by our intelligence officers. At the detention facility, I learned that most of the evidence we had collected against him had never been analyzed. I was told that a high-ranking official (I don't know whether it was a diplomat or someone from the CIA or the Army) had called the facility, incredulous that the man was being detained. Later, I found out that our detainee was politically well-connected, which supposedly played a role in his release. But we lost credibility with the Iraqi police. And we were ticked off at the waste of our time and our unnecessary exposure to danger.

It's possible that there was some great rationale for releasing this man. But my men and I will never know why he was really let go. We knew that he was contributing to sectarian violence. Could someone at least tell my men that everything they did counted for something? What did I risk their lives for?

In the Army, junior captains and lieutenants, mainly as platoon leaders, as well as senior captains who are company commanders, are the primary group of officers manning the trenches and facing battle alongside enlisted soldiers (sergeants and privates). When a soldier dies, we feel it more than generals and colonels do. Along with the sergeants, we're the ones who explain to young enlisted men why a 23 percent interest rate on a car loan is not the best idea. Or that while a soldier may qualify for a loan to buy a Lexus (to attract girls), he also needs gas and insurance. And that stripper poles don't equal marriage altars. In short, we help raise them.

During war, we're the ones who are there when the bomb goes off or an enemy's bullet meets its mark. On one occasion, one of my fellow captains had to deal with a firefight even as he tried to calm a soldier whose genitals had been blasted with shrapnel slivers.

I'm not indicting generals and colonels. The point is that the experience of lower-ranking officers on the front lines creates a gap between us and other officers, and it makes us want to catch our breath before deploying again.

Older captains and higher-ranking officers can get jobs in the Army and "hit pause" before redeploying. They might, for instance, become ROTC instructors or go to graduate school. I tried for an ROTC job at a university and got a good reaction. Awesome, I thought -- my fiancee would get to keep her job, and I would use my experience to prepare future officers for combat, returning to command matured and refocused. Another captain was accepted into a graduate program starting in 2011. But the Army requires both of us first to attend the Career Course and deploy again as commanders -- and see our fiancees/wives two years later. The other captain wants to stay in, but he's wavering.

After experiencing the front lines, we'd stay in if we had a chance to take a break. We'd get family life right, mature, dissipate the frustrations and refocus. But Army career management policy doesn't allow it.

I love a lot about the Army and I don't want anyone to think that it's an evil institution. It's not. But I can't stay in any longer. It will be too long before I've achieved enough rank to work to change it. That's for generals and colonels, which is 16 years away for me, assuming that I'd keep getting promoted. My desire to start a family, the possibility of other jobs and my frustrations have combined to usher me into a new season of life earlier than I had planned.

john.rogersiii@us.army.mil

Another "fake soldier" risks being smeared by the right-wing hate machine and tells it like it is. How did this war slide off the front page, anyway?

UPDATE I - PALE RIDER

Yes, I do realize this twenty-something Captain sounds a little self-centered. Well, show me a 20 something that ain't and we'll agree we've found ourselves a zombie.

From my Home State, Rep Michele Bachmann assures us (via think progress):

On Saturday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) spoke to a group of Minnesota GOP. During that speech, reports the West Sherburne Tribune, Bachmann highlighted the progress in Iraq, stating that God is on the side of America in the war:

What our service men and women have accomplished over there has been nothing short of astounding. Though you never hear about it in the media. God has not abandoned us.

Bachmann also said that global warming is “all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax.”

Well, God may not have abandoned us, but all of the officers and NCOs are certainly abandoning the cause in Iraq.

Operation: Move Those Goal Posts!

Last January the Resident forged ahead with the Surge™, selling it by frequently referencing the Friedman Unit, and pleading for six more months like a junkie whore pleading for a bump.

In May, the Resident prevailed with the supplemental spending bill, and the war was funded through the end of fiscal year 2007 on 30 September. One of the conditions attached to the supplemental, PL 110-28 mandated that the GAO report to Congress on 01 September assessing the progress of the Iraqi government on 18 separate benchmarks.

The GAO released their report on Tuesday. The assessment found that only three of 18 benchmarks had been met.

The picture is bleak. That means there is only one thing to do...Move the goalposts!

Now, since the test has been graded and an F- has been awarded (Three of 18 is 17%) the White House wants the Congress to ignore the failure to meet the benchmarks - which by the way were proposed by the White House and the Iraqi government, not Congress - and concentrate instead on the alliances that are now being made with Sunni Sheiks. The White House also absurdly insists that arming the Sunnis enhances the relationship with the Shia dominated government of Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

You know, since they insist - lets take a moment to look at that arrangement. We are arming the very people who were killing Americans this time last year, the same people that were once the greatest threat to the stability of the country. Additionally, so much ammo is going to Iraqis that our cops stateside are training with paintballs. (Trust me on this - there is no fucking comparison between a 9mm and a paintball gun!) This is truly a sick joke, especially when they flog the lie that this clusterfuck is necessary to 'keep Americans safe.'

The Pentagon immediately commenced with the protesting. One of the nits they picked: The GAO used 'old' data...all the way back through the end of July! And that is just not fair, you see, because August was better! If that data was included, the benchmarks would be nearer! (I'm curious...Were they supposed to do the analysis over the long Labor Day weekend?)

The report determined that violence remained high....prompting Pentagon officials to once more insist that the August numbers would have improved the numbers considerable. (Really? The Yazidis might disagree. 500 Yazidis were killed in coordinated bomb attacks in mid-August. August saw the single most deadly attack of the entire civil war.)

The Pentagon cranked up the Wurlitzer, and House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (MO-07) put on the funny pants and danced like a good little monkey to advance the PentaSpin.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) said Pentagon officials had told Republican leaders that the GAO had relied on outdated information....He added that lawmakers were far more interested in the assessment coming next week from Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker.

Roy is, of course, referring to the 'report' that the White House is producing for Petraeus and Crocker to deliver. And Roy should speak for himself. He is the Minority whip, and most of the members on the Majority side of the aisle (with the exception of the pod-person that replaced Brian Baird when he popped in for a dog-and-pony show) have had General Petraeus' number since 26 September 2004, when he threw his support behind Bush and the war with a fawning Op-Ed in the Washington Post. (I am still non-plussed that I seem to be the only person having a fit about it. What's up with that? Generals are simply not supposed to weigh in before an election, and I frankly hoped it would at least get a mention when he was in front of Congress before receiving his fourth star.)

Roy can look forward to the Happy-Talk Express all he wants. But something tells me that it is not going to roll down smooth tracks. Congress has about a hundred million angry bees in their collective bonnet, and every last one of us sent our bullshit detectors in for servicing in advance of the PR offensive that is supposed to convince us to sacrifice a few thousand more of our children on the altar of Bush's ego.