Guys, I'm introducing a new feature of Blue Inkblots.  It seems that now that the press has caught on to the fact that they were bamboozled, and now that the Democrats have restored some semblance of accountability to Bushworld, then every single day there is a new OUTRAGE, something that makes you want to climb up on the roof with a bullhorn and yell out at passersby:  YOU WON'T BELIEVE THIS. 

I've found that some of the most significant outrages, to my way of thinking, get overlooked by many news sources--even progressive websites--and I think to myself, That will be my next post.

But before I get a chance, a couple hours has gone by and there are three new things that make me scream, so I thought that, on Sundays, I would post a weekly "Rapid Round-Up", in which I point out some of the latest madnesses to come out of the loony farm. 

So here is this week's collection:


CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MEMO:  U.S. ARMY HAS ENOUGH MONEY ON HAND TO FINANCE THE IRAQ WAR THROUGH JULY.

As soon as both the House and Senate passed an unprecedented rebuke of Bush's miserable policies in Iraq, and stated the wishes of a majority of the American people, that if the Iraqis don't start taking responsibility for their own security, the Americans are outta there--Bush started this dire drumbeat of deadline hysteria that if his emergency funding bill for the war isn't passed NOW, that the troops will run out of money APRIL 15, and that they won't get the proper supplies or training.

He has sent out his legions of yes-men to perpetuate this myth to Congress and to the media, who, as always, dutifully report it.  And even on the Sunday morning talk shows, none that I watched even MENTIONED the CRS report to Congress--not the talking pinheads or the Democratic guests.

This report, dated March 28 was sent to the Sentate Budget Committee. stated that there is plenty of money to fund everything the Army needs to do through the end of July.  In fact, funds already approved by Congress are sufficient to fund the war fully through May, and additional funds can be made available simply by shifting some of the accounts.  No doubt some supersonic jet we don't need could wait a week or two for more pork while we feed and arm our troops.

One Democratic congressmean (don't ask me his name) did mention that a couple years ago, Bush presented the emergency funding bill to Congress for the war in March, that the Republican Congress didn't even ACT on it until July, and nobody said a word.

Just assume that the White House knee-jerk threats and paranoia are always, ALWAYS lies.


PETRAEUS HAS ALREADY REQUESTED TWO MORE BRIGADES OF TROOPS THAN THE AGREED-UPON NUMBER, TO HANDLE THE VIOLENCE SPREADING TO OUTER PROVINCES FROM BAGHDAD AS THE SECURITY PLAN "WORKS."

Although  there are signs that some of the worst of the violence in Baghdad is receding--mostly less Shiite Death Squad activities (in other words, fewer beheaded and tortured bodies showing up in dumps)--the harsh truth is that the more American troops arrive in Baghdad to implement the new "security plan," the worst the violence spreads to outlying regions.  In an article entitled, "The Small-Town War:  U.S. troops fight insurgents where they are dug in hardest: away from Baghdad, in the Iraqi hinterlands," in this week's Time magazine, Mark Kukis reports from Baquhah, Iraq:

The Bush Administration's buildup of U.S. forces in Baghdad has yielded some tentatively encouraging results: sectarian violence in the capital has decreased in the past month, and some displaced residents have started to return home.  But in places like Diyala, the surge is having the opposite effect.  The increased U.S. presence in Baghdad has pushed many Sunni and Shiite fighters out of the city into areas where they have found roles in ongoing battles, launched new assaults on U.S. and Iraqi troops, and infected the civilian population with sectarian hate....clearing operations in Baqubah could take months and require another influx of U.S. forces, and Colonel David Sutherland, the commanding officer in the province, says he's mulling over making a request for more soldiers.


In other words, the results of troop escalation to manage a civil war where you are not wanted has predictable results.  Senator Joe Biden (D-Del) says that it's like squeezing a water balloon in the middle--the water just expands other parts of the balloon.

My son's Marine Corps unit, which has done three combat deployments to Iraq already, was scheduled to go on a Marine Expeditionary "float," where they load up on a big ship and have stops in the Philippines or Okinawa.  They've been training for that.

Only now, it's been scrapped.  They're heading to Iraq once again.

My nephew's Army unit was scheduled to deploy to Baghdad soon, but that has been changed.  They're still going to Iraq, but may be needed further north.


IN A REPORT FOR THE U.S. ARMY, RET. GENERAL BARRY McCAFFREY SAID THAT A "SUBSTANTIAL" TROOP PRESENCE IN IRAQ WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT THREE YEARS.

That's not all the report said.  According to an article in Stars & Stripes, McCaffrey reported: 

The Army is starting to unravel after having been "starved for resources" and given its current commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan, "We have no strategic reserve in the United States to deploy into a new combat requirement.  There is no strategic reserve in the Middle East.  We are flat on our asses."

In the meantime, Army desertions have reached a record high--another little factoid little-reported (in fact, the Army had been adjusting downward the numbers until recently), they are waiving criminal convictions in recruitment and allowing kids to come in who have dropped out of high school, and in another little overlooked article in the Boston Globe, it appears that the Army is now rushing officer promotions.  They are so desperate for officers in the field that they are promoting men and women who are vastly underqualified, who have done poorly on exams, or who have received poor fitness reps--all qualities that could get our troops on the ground KILLED.

But they have no choice.  It's an "all-volunteer" army, and the commander-in-chief wants an escalation.


U.S. DEATH TOLL IN MARCH IS TWICE THAT OF IRAQI FORCES.

This, according to a recent report in the Associated Press.  What does that tell us?  I think it's self-explanatory. 

We're doing all the fighting.  We're lucky if the Iraqis even show up.  And what happens when we do our job?

Well, this past week, there was a horrific car-bombing in a Shiite neighborhood of BAGHDAD, where more than 150 were killed.  A couple of days later, Iraqi security forces fanned out into a nearby Sunni neighborhood in BAGHDAD, and, using automatic weapons, simply mowed down as many men between the ages of 15 and 70 as they could round up--more than SEVENTY.

American and Iraqi Army troops arrested a number of Iraqi police who were believed to have been responsible for the massacre.

Couple days later, Maliki let them go.

To recap:  It's okay for American troops to kill and/or arrest Sunnis.  Not okay to kill or arrest Shiites, no matter how despicable their acts.

Maliki wants to manipulate this American troop escalation to snuff out Sunnis wherever they are, which means we are forced to, in effect, take sides with the Shiites.

One other small piece--a New York Times article.  Where as yes, some displaced families are returning to Baghdad--they are largely Shiite.  When one Sunni widow and mother of seven attempted to return to her home, her life was threatened.  When gun-weilding Iraqi police came to her home to drag her away, she snuck into another room and called the Americans.

The American and Iraqi Army troops came immediately to this woman's aid and arrested the men with phony ID's who were threatening to kill her and who were attempting to kidnap her.

The next day, jubilant that she had been protected, she left for a nearby market to shop for food for her family.

And she was shot dead.

The American company commander who had personally intervened to protect this woman in her own home, was devastated.  "What am I supposed to do?" he asked the reporter who had been present for the whole thing.  "What can we do?"


We can get the hell out of there.  That is what we can do.