Army Officer Accuses Generals of 'Intellectual and Moral Failures'

[maddezmom]

Source: Washington Post

Army Officer Accuses Generals of 'Intellectual and Moral Failures'

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 27, 2007; Page A04

An active-duty Army officer is publishing a blistering attack on U.S. generals, saying they have botched the war in Iraq and misled Congress about the situation there.

"America's generals have repeated the mistakes of Vietnam in Iraq," charges Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, an Iraq veteran who is deputy commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. "The intellectual and moral failures . . . constitute a crisis in American generals."

Yingling's comments are especially striking because his unit's performance in securing the northwestern Iraqi city of Tall Afar was cited by President Bush in a March 2006 speech and provided the model for the new security plan underway in Baghdad.

He also holds a high profile for a lieutenant colonel: He attended the Army's elite School for Advanced Military Studies and has written for one of the Army's top professional journals, Military Review.

The article, "General Failure," is to be published today in Armed Forces Journal and is posted at http://www.armedforcesjournal.com. Its appearance signals the public emergence of a split inside the military between younger, mid-career officers and the top brass.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602230.html

[Hekate]

1. KnR. This is important news -- but won't it be a career ending move for him?

It's got to be extremely difficult to break ranks like this; courageous too.

Hekate

[truthisfreedom]

2. Not after We regain the White House.

He'll be a hero.

[NewJeffCT]

5. The reaction of the military will be telling

If he is fired and smeared, it will be difficult for him.

However, if this goes over quietly, it could mean there are at least a few generals that agree with him and could be helping him behind the scenes get his message out.

[rodeodance]

8. yes, we will have to see.

[frogcycle]

15. I'd say he decided to roll the dice.

He's clearly a scholor - a student of war. There are those, by the way. Highly intelligent people who study the history, science and art of warfare, not as ghols counting bodies and rubbing their hands together, as so many seem to think, but as sociologists, political scientists.

He has his views as to what the criteria should be for selecting generals. The existing criteria would NOT select him. He'd be one of the many colonels who end their career as staff officers in the Pentagon, or in Tampa, doing analysis and planning while various ass-kissers et al get the promotions.

So he figured he'd describe his view of what SHOULD be. If Congress listens, then he's on a fast track to the top; if not, well, hell, nothing ventured/nothing gained. And he'll have a lucrative career as a "talking head" if he wants it.

[clixtox]

30. We are surely doomed...

If this essay represents cutting edge thinking, among the brightest commissioned US officers, about the major causes of our nearly nonstop military embarrassments and the perpetration of multiple successive immoralities and war crimes. Even if we somehow muddle through, here and now, if there is any karma or "final" reckoning, look out below!

I read the essay and there wasn't any mention of the concept of "just war" and/or the concept of "war crimes". In the aftermath of WW2, the Nuremburg Trials showed the world what happens to the aggressors who invade other countries, slaughtering the inhabitants. Following orders wasn't a viable defense if the order was to commit or abet a war crime. That is exactly what we are doing now in Iraq and we killed, poisoned and maimed a lot of innocent Vietnamese and many others in the last fifty years.

We killed thousands of completely innocent Panamanians while literally kidnapping their leader, Manuel Noriega (who is due to be freed from prison in September, 2007!!!), our own CIA/NSA creation, like Saddam was also. We actually KILLED thousands of completely innocent men women and children in Panama, and their pets, so that we could bring Manuel Noriega a taste of American " justice"!!! That war crime was named "Just Cause", just 'cause we could with impunity(so far).

None of this recent history is mentioned in a moral context, only Vietnam as being one over in the loss column. If only we had been more evolved in those halcyon times, then we would have prevailed in VN, supposedly. For how long? At what cost? For what?

If nothing else will rile up Americans or Brits, killing defenseless pets will, but the pet carnage is glossed over as only collateral damage. We are doomed to repeat...

[some guy]

39. For how long? At what cost? For what?

For as long as the empire stands, for perpetuation of the empire.

The fact is the US has been an empire from virtually it's very beginning. We killed thousands of native Americans to expand this nation beyond the original thirteen states. The Monroe Doctrine (about 1836) essentially told the European powers that we would colonize, in our own way, all of Central and South America, and fight them if they interferred. The Spanish-American war extended our empire to the Phillipines.

It's not just our recent past that has been immoral.

[some guy]

3. That was a very good essay.

I skipped over the WAPO article, but read the Armed Forces Journal essay.

It covers a lot of ground, and makes quite a bit of sense IMO. I'll be interested to see what DU's former military people think of it.

[OneBlueSky]

4. just what we need, another crisis . . . "a crisis in American generals" . . . n/t

.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

6. BushCo created this crisis by firing all the generals who didn't agree w/them

We had a purge of the military.

In some ways it is very much like Stalin's purge in the 1930's - we lost our best commanders just before we needed them.

[wordpix]

12. exactly---I can't wait to hear from Gen. Shinseki who was fired for saying we needed more troops at

the beginning of the war. A friend of mine in the military was incensed over that.

[tabasco]

29. Exactly right. The Bush mafia has promoted the yes-men and incompetents.

Our troops are paying the price in blood for the utter corruption of the Bush war-profiteering cabal.

I salute the good LTC for having the moral courage to call out the yes-men.

:patriot:

[ClintonTyree]

32. Well, surely Bush will scour the Pentagon....

looking for 4 Generals to refute Col. Yingling's assessment. It's getting harder and harder to find those people though, Bush has discarded so many that wouldn't carry his water for him. Perhaps the Pentagon will have to promote a whole new batch of Generals, with the caveat that they're to support the Commander in Thief's policies, however rash and illogical. Sort of like Bush handing out "Medal of Freedom" awards like so many M&Ms.

"The Decider" doesn't like bad news and his underlings will do whatever it takes to make sure this news is sanitized before of reaches him, if it ever does. The petulant frat boy won't tolerate anything less.

[rodeodance]

7. WHOW--he is 'active-duty"

[bklyncowgirl]

9. Interesting essay. The stupidity of it all is made very clear.

The administration thought they could bomb Iraq into submission, seize the capital, nab Saddam and everything would be hunky dory, mission accomplished. They were tragically wrong. The generals who knew this was going to be a disaster should have spoken up loud and clear even though it meant their careers. General Shinsecki is a hero, imho.

[LynnTheDem]

31. Many US generals, admirals, and other officers DID speak up

Funny thing, the entire world heard them...cept America, where the US "media" didn't bother much with reporting the dissent in the military to bush's illegal bullshit.

[Captain Hilts]

10. An ACTIVE DUTY officer doing this?! Whoa! nt

[wordpix]

13. the guy has balls, which the generals who were taken to task don't

[Captain Hilts]

20. Moral fortitude does not require ownership of balls. Ball owners got us in this mess. nt

[Jacobin]

11. I was wondering where these people were

I'm glad to see there is at least one of them

[youngdem]

14. Lt. Col. Paul Yingling better watch out for a fragging

That is all.

[frogcycle]

16. nahhhh

fraggings were people pissed off at superiors; he's pissing off his superiors. They don't frag, they just muster out. And I suspect he's got the ear of a lot of his superiors. There are no doubt many in the general corps who agree with him, and know their careers are at a dead end as well.

I expect the moderately publicized takeover of the AF Academy by xtian zealots is not isolated. Top officer corps in all the services is probably much like the executive departments - becoming more and more a set of "loyal bushies." Those who don't drink the koolaid see the firings and know they are next.

I'll say this - we should watch the response to this closely. It will be an indicator of the level of (welcome) discontent in the brass.

[youngdem]

38. Pat Tillman may have a different opinion of whether superiors frag problematic soldiers

[Aviation Pro]

17. I served with the regimental commander of 3rd ACR.....

...he is a good and fair man. He'll make a good decision after weighing all the facts, but I think Lt. Col. Yingling, although making a brave decision of great personal sacrifice, is probably in for a rougher ride than just being cashiered out of the service.

[gratuitous]

18. There is little doubt in my mind

Mr. Yingling will be in for the hassle of his life, especially from the mean little vindictive bunch of moral Lilliputians running the country and their minions running the military. But this is an example of bravery and damn-the-consequences speaking out I've been waiting to see from active duty military folks for years. While there has been an isolated Watada here or a retired general there, it's about time someone in Mr. Yingling's position baldly stated the glaringly obvious.

In the (probably very) long run, I think Mr. Yingling will come out all right. But he's in for more hell than a little bit in the next two to five years, and could very well have kicked away the accrued benefits of his career to this point. But isn't that what a hero is supposed to do?

[9thkvius]

48. Yingling may be the "Hack" of this generation's war

When COL David Hackworth, a highly decorated and successful officer spoke out on the TV show Issues and Answers in 1971, it effectively ended his Army career. He was totally vilified by the senior leadership of the Army for his scathing critique of the way the war was being fought and lost. He became so disillusioned that he moved to Australia and lived there for many years before he felt comfortable enough to return to the United States.

I hope LTC Yingling does not have as rough a time. God, please let us learn from our mistakes.

[Big_Mike]

59. It's called Moral Courage

And while plenty of folks display Physical Courage, to include our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coastie Guards, few people of any group display Moral Courage. It is so rare, we easily recall those who exercise it: Anthony, Ghandi, King, etc.

The salute is a greeting of respect between members of the armed forces.

I for one would gladly exchange salutes with this officer.

[Solly Mack]

19. I recommend people read the essay and not just what the article claims about the

essay

[Aviation Pro]

21. I did....

...and I know what you're saying, but he pays homage to Gen. Shinseki in the following passage:

Alone among America's generals, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki publicly stated that "several hundred thousand soldiers" would be necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. Prior to the war, President Bush promised to give field commanders everything necessary for victory. Privately, many senior general officers both active and retired expressed serious misgivings about the insufficiency of forces for Iraq. These leaders would later express their concerns in tell-all books such as "Fiasco" and "Cobra II." However, when the U.S. went to war in Iraq with less than half the strength required to win, these leaders did not make their objections public.

This is a validation of the "Shinseki Doctrine" from the rank and file and an indictment of the incompetence of the "Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld Doctrine" and the complacency of the General officer corps.

[Solly Mack]

22. Shinseki was absolutely correct in his thinking

[VLC98]

23. No mention of General Zinni though.

I think I read in "Fiasco" that Zinni developed the plan to go in with several thousand troops. I've given the book away, so I can't double check, but didn't he also resign over the war?

[brg5001]

24. Zinni disagreed with the "surge" (escalation)

My understanding is that Zinni sided with the Iraq Study Group and expressed that point of view before King George. Of course, such truth-telling could not be tolerated.

[AnneD]

26. Rummsfeld was the worst person...

to put in charge of the military. He wanted yes men like Colin Powell. He wanted folks to agree with his bogus assumptions. I find it ironic that the last war we fought with the 'New Republicans or NeoCons', was VietNam. Our first foray into Iraq was successful for many reasons and one of which the top brass had been seasoned in Nam and could adjust. Their skills were confirmed. The NeoCons came away with the false assumption that Iraq would be easy because the VN Brass made it look easy.

His last paragraph sums up our dilemma.

"Iraq is America's Valmy. America's generals have been checked by a form of war that they did not prepare for and do not understand. They spent the years following the 1991 Gulf War mastering a system of war without thinking deeply about the ever changing nature of war. They marched into Iraq having assumed without much reflection that the wars of the future would look much like the wars of the past. Those few who saw clearly our vulnerability to insurgent tactics said and did little to prepare for these dangers. As at Valmy, this one debacle, however humiliating, will not in itself signal national disaster. The hour is late, but not too late to prepare for the challenges of the Long War. We still have time to select as our generals those who possess the intelligence to visualize future conflicts and the moral courage to advise civilian policymakers on the preparations needed for our security. The power and the responsibility to identify such generals lie with the U.S. Congress. If Congress does not act, our Jena awaits us."

[frogcycle]

33. the key phrase is

"However, when the U.S. went to war in Iraq with less than half the strength required to win, these leaders did not make their objections public."

What he is saying is that in our supposed democracy, voices of dissent are supposed to be tolerated, but that the military top-down sir-yes-sir policy flies in the face of that. People of honor would "make their objections public" and take the consequences. It is dishonorable to do as the vast majority of the populace does, and look out for #1 first - like those I heard say in the 2004 election that they didn't like bush, or the war, but worked for a big company so would vote republican anyway "to keep their job." It was not always thus. Generals have the obligations he describes. They need to read, and re-read the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

[legin]

25. text(?) of Fuller's "Generalship: Its Diseases and Their Cure."

http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Fuller/Fuller.asp

I assume it must be the full text.

[Robeson]

27. Very good essay.

[Zambero]

28. He makes a good argument. However, the fact remains...

The generals were assigned the task of fighting a war based on false premises. Bush the "decision-maker" is solely accountable for making a tragically bad decision, and expecting the military to somehow "slam dunk to victory" without considering the history of sectarian hostilities and potential for civil war that would ensue in a power vacuum once Saddam was ousted. This article almost gives Bush/Cheney a way out of their own ideology-based ineptness. "If only those generals had their historic shit together, we could have won this thing, blah blah". A lie is a lie is a lie, and, generals can't undo that. And Bush's steadfast support of the blundering "stay the course" Rumsfeld only goes to prove that the calbre of civilian leadership that dictates policy to miltary commanders will ultimatly make or break the outcome. In this instance, it was the Bushco WMD fabrication machine that broke the outcome, even before the first troops were deployed to Iraq.

[truedelphi]

34. After all, if he is going after the top brass

The toppest of the Brass is Bush - this is his war, and he is the one that cherry-picked the "intel" that got us in there, and heis the one who refused to heed what Brent Scowcroft and Shineski tried tot ell him about having enough men on the ground.

[speedoo]

35. Thank you, Lt. Col. Paul Yingling.

For telling the truth. Few are as courageous as you are.

K&R.

[Kurovski]

36. K&R. (nt)

[vapor]

37. military

this guy couldn't hack it in the Bush military, so now he's Bush bashing in hope's of getting a job from a dem prez.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

42. A real soldier would gag serving under BushCo

nm

[Sic-Semper-Tyrannis]

58. I sincerely hope the above comment was a sad attempt at irony by Vapor

LTC Yingling is a graduate of the Army's School of Advanced Military Studies at Ft Leavenworth. He has been published previously in Armed Forces Journal, and now Military Review. He has multiple tours in Iraq. He is deputy commander of an armored cavalry regiment (a high-profile positon) and has already been selected to command his own battalion. This is a guy who "couldn't hack it in the Bush military"? Not only is he "hacking it," anyone who has ever served as an officer can see he is (or was) on the fast-track to make Brigadier General. His resume is very impressive. And we don't serve "in hope's (sic) of getting a job" from the next President. We are not political appointees. We serve as long as we want or the country requires us. But then I'm only an active-duty Lt Col myself, so what could I know compared to Vapor? I'm sure he's seen every episode of Tour of Duty twice, so I defer to his obvious expertise.

[9thkvius]

40. Not too surprised really

The former commander of the 3rd ACR, Colonel H.R. McMaster, wrote his PhD dissertation on how the Joint Chiefs of Staff did the same thing during the Vietnam War. It was later published in book form under the title Dereliction of Duty. I highly recommend it.

I would imagine that McMaster had some role in shaping the opinion of LTC Yingling.

Rampant careerism is by far the worst problem facing the United States Army and the U.S. military as a whole today. It is because of careerism that officers faced with making a choice between confronting issues head on (and taking the consequences for it) and sweeping the problem under the rug (or passing on the blame for it) will frequently choose the latter. Many officers, perhaps even most officers, would rather shuffle their problems onto other units or onto their subordinates rather than solve them. It made me ill when I was an enlisted man and it still makes me sick to my stomach now.

- Careerism is why so many officers failed to challenge the inept, misguided, incompetent, arrogant civilian leadership in the Pentagon, especially Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Cambone. Rumsfeld bullied them, and instead of fighting back for their soldiers and their country, many of them caved.

- Careerism is why after multiple investigations, a handful of enlisted personnel were punished for Abu Graib and virtually everyone else involved was absolved or even promoted, with the exception of BG Karpinski, who was one of the highest-ranking female officers in theater, which brings me to the next issue....

- Careerism is why sexual assaults, rapes, and other discipline problems within the ranks like drug use are frequently not dealt with head on because officers would rather downplay them or pretend that the problems are not there. Otherwise any problems within their unit might reflect badly on them, and we can't have that now, can we? Can't get passed up for that next promotion now, can we? So what if female soldiers are afraid to walk to the latrine at night because of fear of rape by their fellow soldiers? Not their problem.

- Careerism is why you see things like inflation of unit performance, inflation of unit readiness, and inflation of unit deployability that have led to countless problems during the current war in Iraq. Can't have anyone admit that his unit is not deployable, can we? And if equipment breaks down in the field, or personnel deploy that are medically unfit, or the unit deploys without their complete TO&E or with broken equipment, who cares?

- Emphasis on big-dollar-item acquisition, like a missile defense system or submarines or helicopters, rather than on necessary but not as sexy items like boots whose soles won't fall off after a few months.

- The cronyism between military people in acquisition and the many huge defense contractor companies. It is no coincidence that so many high-ranking officers move on to well-paying positions in the defense industry after they retire. Lots of cash money to be made.

Of course, I could go on and on, but I need to end my rant here. I hope you get my point.

-

[VLC98]

41. Great post. I get your point. nt

[rcdean]

44. Your post is more to the point than his article.

Not that his piece isn't worthy. While he hints at careerism, he never mentions it by name. And while he hints at cronyism he never goes into the damage it causes.

I would like to see somebody like you amplify his piece. Or maybe do something that includes his and builds upon it.

Another missed point in his piece is the simple rule--that ought to be part of the "Theory of Counterinsurgency"--is that you absolutely must

MUST!

win the hearts and minds of the people.

The Hearts and Minds phrase became almost a joke in Nam. But it's the key to everything. That means not just providing security (which he talks about) but also rebuilding, making sure the infrastructure works (e.g. electricity), and making sure people have incomes--preferably with jobs from the local economy, but with jobs from our rebuilding efforts if necessary. Iraq's current rate of unemployment among males is between 1/3 and 2/3 depending on who you listen to.

Busting doors down in the middle of the night, grabbing military age (and older) males out of their beds, humiliating them in front of their families, hauling them off to jails on suspicion to linger for months or years and possibly be tortured, bombing residential areas, ignoring unemployment and lack of electricity, all of this comprises a formula for predictable disaster.

The best thing about this guy's article is that it actually promotes the idea that an intellect is a good thing!

[9thkvius]

47. Some military intellectuals are still around, thank God

but the problem is that most of them don't get very far because of the problems with cronyism and careerism. There are occasional exceptions, like GEN Wesley Clark, but there are also a lot of people wearing stars that I wouldn't trust to lead me to the bathroom. The reason they were able to become generals is not because they were brilliant intellectuals, but because they knew how to get all their tickets punched and knew how to use the system. Some of the best officers I ever knew were passed over for promotion while some real douchebags made it into the fast-track.

LTC Yingling does make some great points, not the least of which is the inability of the Army as an institution to learn. COL David Hackworth (God rest his beautiful, magnificent soul) used to call it "CRS", short for "Can't remember shit". I cheered when I read the section where Yingling rips into "On Strategy", Harry Summers' book on Vietnam. COL Summers is no longer around to defend himself, but I know a LOT of officers who read that book and were heavily influenced by it. I hated that damn book. I thought it was really off the mark and it ultimately did a horrible, horrible disservice to the Army and the country by convincing an entire generation of Army officers that Vietnam could have been won militarily. Even after he met many of the Vietnamese officers who had led their country against us, COL Summers still couldn't really see it. There's a famous story (not sure if it's true) about how COL Summers told a ranking Vietnamese officer "You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield" and the Vietnamese officer replied "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant." I seriously doubt that Summers ever really understood what that guy meant by that. His follow-on book about the first Gulf War was written as a sort of vindication for all the arguments he made in the first book, but he still ended up making things worse because the Army kept saying "See? We were right all along." They did not learn a goddamn thing, and now we are paying for it in Iraq.

[rcdean]

52. Your right, Yingling is something of a Hack protege.

Hack in April 2003 for god sake!!! called Rummy an arrogant asshole for going in light and cheap, said Iraq would take 30 years, and basically predicted all that has happened. (I did too but never got to say it on tv :))

One solution to a lot of the careerism and kissing up for rank in the military, imo, is broader staffing and use of the IG. Nothing struck fear into the hearts of the brass more when I was in Nam than the notion that the IG was looking into something. Somehow that institution has managed to retain an honorable standard of integrity.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. And thank you for your service

and for saying what needs to be said, and this is not only the army... by the way


:patriot:

[cal04]

43. Yahoo news:Army officer criticizes generals on Iraq

An active duty U.S. Army officer has taken the unusual step of openly criticizing the way generals have handled the Iraq war, accusing them of failing to prepare their forces for an insurgency and misleading Congress about the situation here.

"For reasons that are not yet clear, America's general officer corps underestimated the strength of the enemy, overestimated the capabilities of Iraq's government and security forces, and failed to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of security conditions in Iraq," Lt. Col. Paul Yingling wrote in an article published Friday in the Armed Forces Journal.

"In 2007, Iraq's grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends an even wider and more destructive regional war," he said.

Several retired U.S. generals have delivered similar criticism, questioning planning for the Iraq conflict as well as the management competence of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070427/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_officer_s_assessment

RECOMMEND THIS STORY
Average (693 votes)
4.6 stars

[provis99]

45. it seems to me the officer corps are always willing to critique each others positions

the problem as I see it is when will the generals criticize the political administration with one voice? Thats a much harder and dangerous task, given the Bushistas track record of removing generals who criticize them. Quite frankly, in my opinion, little if any blame can be lain at the feet of the generals. They are unfairly faced with the paradox of dealing with reality, and dealing with the Bush administration at the same time. Rather than sniping at the generals, who quite frankly neither produced the policies that got us into war in the first place nor demonstrated any enthusiasm for it, the ones I would really like to see career officers criticizing is our corrupt, twisted political leaders (ie Bush and cronies), since they're the onces directly responsible for initiating this god-awful war, not the generals. Generals merely offer options; they don't make political decisions. The Bush administration does that.

[MethuenProgressive]

46. Expect Tokyo Rove to start Yingling's character assanation asap.

FOX "News" will be calling him names before midnight.

[nealmhughes]

49. This a "test case" for the New Pentagon under Gates.

A float test: if he floats he gets to be Colonel and then a General.

If he sinks, he quietly retires as a tombstone Colonel.

Or he rides it out until the new Adminstration takes charge. He can probably do that with relative ease. I doubt he published it without his "rabbis" knowing about it.

For those not landlocked, a LtCol is a Navy Commander: the rank at which he has already been an XO and navigator as well as a department head, and definitely an engineer on a submarine, getting ready to become a captain or else a captain of a submarine.

I have to convert land and air ranks to Navy to understand what the equivalent is. I still get confused about batallions, armies, platoons and squadrons. . .

[Grandrose]

50. Wow!

:kick: Maybe the truth, will finally set us free.

[lovuian]

51. Loosing there soldiers respect

Generals don't care

[Joey Liberal]

53. Lt. Col. Paul Yingling is a hero n/t

[Fresh_Start]

54. wish he'd made one more point....

that through this cowardice, the Generals have endangered the entire country. They have left it with a broken military. They ahve left it with a citizenship who cannot trust either the civilian or the military leaders.

[ProudDad]

55. This is pretty cool

The split between the younger officers and the top brass in Venezuela resulted in the Bolivarian Revolution.

Pray it happens here...

[johntully]

56. I posted the whole Bill Maher Real Time from FRIDAY night

Dennis Kucinich acts presidential, the Republican on the panel admits to not REALLY knowing how it’s going in Iraq, and Bill defends Alec Baldwin’s right to yell at his daughter. The model for “A Few Good Men”,US Attorney David Iglesias has a live sitdown with Bill and is promptly and rightly called a hero by Maher. It seemed like Mr. Iglesias was a little emotional and it was a very good moment. Richard Belzer was great, not interrupting with cute jokes right in the middle of great discussions like Dana Carvey did a few weeks back. The Baghdad bureau chief for NPR, Jamie Tarabay, told of how the Green Zone is a myth in that it’s more dangerous than the (red zone) and so she and her staff don’t stay there.
Republican Lisa Schiffren, the former speech-writer for Newt Gingrich among other things, tried to talking point her way out of a discussion involving Iraqi oil revenue and the money supposedly going towards reconstruction of the infrastructure…. “Well maybe things haven’t gone on line as fast…well I haven’t actually been there so I can’t speak for how things are” after the Baghdad bureau chief flatly says: “that’s just not true”
It’s sad how completely and utterly full of SHITE “these” people are.

JT
http://broadcatching.wordpress.com