Copperheads Foiled Again

Friday, November 11, 2005
DoD announced today that the armed forces are getting off on the right foot in the new fiscal year with regard to recruitment. Last year marked the first time since 1999 that the Army actually missed its announced recruiting goal. The Army had sought a total of 80,000 new soldiers and wound up with 73,000. Seditious elements within the unreality-based community had reason to celebrate after their efforts provided at least some help in reducing enlistments during the first seven months of last year.

October is actually the fifth month in a row that the Army has met its goal and those responsible for recruitment indicate that they feel that the right resource mix is now available to sustain their efforts. The numbers are especially gratifying in light of the drop in the unemployment rate to 5%. Making the numbers in a full employment economy is a very positive sign.

It's enough to drive disloyal lefties to tears.

56 comments:

Jamie Irons said...

Rick,

I love it!

Jamie Irons

flenser said...

"It's enough to drive disloyal lefties to tears."

Enter markg8, stage left ..

markg8 said...

You rang?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.recruit08nov08,1,1130565.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

"Army reaches low, fills ranks
12% of recruits in Oct. had lowest acceptable scores"

The Army "surpassed" it's goal for October. They recruited 4925 kids toward the fiscal 2006 goal of 80,000.
Um 4925 x 12 = 59,100. What's wrong with this picture?

flenser said...

So, markg8, why did the army miss its recruiting goals in 1999?

No pressure, take your time in answering.

markg8 said...

Lotsa jobs.

Rick Ballard said...

Dear Seditious Scum,

Monthly recruiting goals are not established by dividing the yearly goal by 12. The determinant is based upon known seasonable fluctuations derived from historical performance.

One shouldn't expect much from objective al-Queada supporters, I suppose.

Knucklehead said...

Markg8,

You haven't gotten around much for a guy your age. Goals, whether for recruiting or selling stuff, are rarely arrived at by taking the annual goal and dividing by twelve.

We're gonna go through some difficult concepts here, but try and hang with - you can do it. Let's say you run a turkey farm and you set goals of selling 120,000 turkeys per year per salesman. If you tell your salesmen that they need to sell 10,000 turkeys per month and missing goal will get them fired and exceeding goal will make them some nice money you'll oddly find that you can't hire a single salesman between January and October but that you have plenty of turkey salesmen for November and December.

Goals are skewed to match seasonal realities. Recruiting goals for the military are almost certainly higher for the months right around school graduations and over the summer and surely lower for the school year months and exceptionally low for the holiday months such as Nov. and Dec.

Since you once registered for the draft you surely have an enormous interest in things military. You might find About.com's Military site interesting and useful.

Knucklehead said...

In related news, Despite Recruiting Shortfall, the Army has Increased in Size and here are the actual FY2005 numbers broken down by service, active vs. reserve, etc.

ex-democrat said...

"Army reaches low, fills ranks
12% of recruits in Oct. had lowest acceptable scores"
Or, in other words,
"Army scores big, 88% of recruits in Oct. had scores exceeding the acceptable level."

markg8 said...

Well I can't resist, maybe that's why 12% of the Army's recruits for October are turkeys who scored between 16 and 30 points out of a possible 99 on an aptitude test that quizzes potential soldiers on general science, mathematics and word knowledge. I don't think things
have been this bad since George Bush scored in the bottom 25% on the aptitude test and jumped over hundreds if not thousands of more qualified applicants to get into the Texas Air Nat'l Guard in 1968.

Oh and the "turkey salesman" who recruit for the Army don't get fired if they fail to find one or two new recruits a month each, they get sent to Iraq.

Ok so the Army has monthly quotas that fluctuate with the prime sign up season like late spring or summer after high school graduation. Makes sense. Here's the numbers from May:

The US Army hoped to recruit 6,700 new members but missed the mark by 1,661 recruits. Even after lowering the bar from 8050 shortly before announcing the results they still missed their goal in May by almost 25 percent.

In June they met their goal just like they did in October. The Army exceeded the quota of 5,650 recruits by about 500 people. Now June would seem to me to be the single biggest month for Army recruiting what with high school graduation and all. After missing for 5 months in a row you'd think they'd up the quota to make up for lost time. So in May the Army tries to get 8050 to sign up and lowers the goal to 6700 so the numbers don't look quite so bad at first glance. And in June they lower the bar from May's revised 6700 to a more doable 5,560.

You guys are right, there are a lot of Republicans in the Army. Some evidently work in the PR dept. of Army Recruiting Command.

David Thomson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David Thomson said...

“One shouldn't expect much from objective al-Queada supporters, I suppose.”

And that is a very fair description of Markg8 and his comrades. It is not even a slight exaggeration. Al-Quaeda may not be a group of wonderful human beings---but it is the enemy of my enemy. Osama bin Ladin hates George W. Bush and Western Civilization. In Markg8's view of the world, the president of the United States and the CEO of Halliburton are more dangerous than the Islamic nihilists. The latter are merely the blow back results of our past colonialist and repressive policies. Bin Ladin is actually a victim. Once we get rid of Bush and the state of Israel, the world will be a peaceful place.

markg8 said...

Oh please David...can't you do better than that?

It wasn't my president of choice who ignored a CIA daily brief titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" little more than a month before 9/11.

It wasn't my president of choice who directed Tommy Franks to start working on new plans for an invasion of Iraq and started moving troops out of Afghanistan a month before Bin Laden got away at Tora Bora.

It isn't my president of choice whose own new handpicked CIA director says he has a pretty good idea of where Bin Laden is but does nothing about it.

When Bush gets serious about fighting Bin Laden instead of using him to try to sew political divisions here at home (like you're trying to do here) let me know.

Peter UK said...

Mr Ballard,
I object to your using the term Scum in regard to Mark(g8) Garrity,I used it first in connection to the common noun bag.

Peter UK said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter UK said...

"When Bush gets serious about fighting Bin Laden"

Well General Mark von Burgerflipper, do give us the benefit of your vast military experience on this.
The entire Western World's intelligence services and many of their highly trained special services are looking for bin Laden, all they need is the word from Supermook and the problem is solved.

BTW "It wasn't my president of choice "
But he is your President,or have you decided that you have abolished the democratic system and will only regard "your president of choice" as legitimate?
I think the constitutional experts here will spell out to exactly what that means.

Rick Ballard said...

My dear Mr UK,

I note your objection. In my defense, my usage was appropriate given the adjectival modifier. The addition of another syllable would interfere with the scansion of the dishonorific.

Surely, one must write with attention to the ear as well as to the eye.

Yours, etc

markg8 said...

Yes Petey Ballard's right. One must write with attention to the ear as well as to the eye.

Try to imagine your words being spoken by someone like Winston Churchill when you write instead of a some cheesy English sitcom character. It won't make your writing any better and you consequently won't be taken any more seriously but at least you'll feel better about yourself. And isn't that why you're here afterall?

Peter UK said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
flenser said...

markg8

Given that "lotsa jobs" accounted for the shortfall in recruiting in 1999, and given that the economy at present is comparable to that in 1999, why would you find it unusual if the army struggled to meet its recruiting goals, as it did last year?

Peter UK said...

Mooky Mook.
Yes, you are right, I forgot you move your lips when you R-E-A-D.Sorry abour thw B-I-G W-O-R-D-S.


BTW,
t won't make your writing any better and you consequently won't be taken any more seriously .

Where did you learn your grammar under a pig? It should be "and consequently you won't"

Are you still using the computer at the office? A knave as well as a fool.

Peter UK said...

Dear Mr Ballard,
Perhaps the word could be enhanced with the application of alliteration,scurvy,slimy,slithering,sanctimonious,scabrous,scatological,well you get the idea.

Flenser,
Why is Mooky Mook pleased at the idea of a shortfall?

markg8 said...

flenser: Um because we're at war? You know that generational committment to Iraq Condi spoke about? Unless you folks who believe in George Bush and his brilliant leadership round up enough recruits to fill the ranks the war is bound to fail. And once again that won't be my fault, Cindy Sheehan's, Harry Reid's, the commanders' of the Army, or even George Bush's or Dick Cheney's. It'll be the fault of all those people who thought Bush and Cheney could best lead us and then didn't follow their lead.

But the irony of course is in one way they ARE following their lead. They are avoiding combat just as George Bush and Dick Cheney did during Vietnam.

Peter UK said...

"because we're at war?"

Well Mook, actually you are are not at war,if you would care to look down from your towering ego,you might notice there is a different government in Iraq,your hero Saddam Hussein is going on trial.
It is the little things,Mook,attention to detail,you never were any good at that,always the shotgun approach.

What is it that causes the unnatural desire for your countries failure,to the extent you will lie?

markg8 said...

Well Petey my country is at war. I'll be paying for that war for years if not decades to come through my tax dollars. My country's reputation is in tatters and I don't like it.

Peter UK said...

No Mooky,You are not at war check the definition.
I doubt that you pay taxes.
How do you know your country's reputation is in tatters,have you ever been anywhere else?

terrye said...

In truth the other branches of the armed forces are exceeding goals and so it does balance out when the Army is short, which it is from time to time. The amazing thing is that we have been able to keep up the numbers in spite of the fighting. Even WW 2 required a draft, and that was the good war.

Mark, are you under the impression that flying the no fly zones and keeping the base open in Saudi Arabia and in general screwing around with Saddam for 11 years was not costly in itself?

Back in 1993 one of the guys who helped attack the WTC the first time fled to Iraq. This is not a big secret. If they had succeeded how many people would have died and what would it have costs?

Then Saddam tried to kill a president..if he had succeeded what would the reaction have been?

Maybe some lefties would have congratulated Saddam on killing a Republican but I don't think the federal government would have reacted that way.

The truth is we were going to have to deal with Saddam and his psycho sons no matter what. And he had no intention of abandoning wmd and it was plain to everyone, even Bill Clinton that Saddam was dangerous, not to mention an evil mother effer.

Just go tell yourself it was not needed, that in fact Iraq was a country of kite flying children prancing happily through fields of laughing flowers.

Oh yes, and democracy, who needs it? Much better to lecture about human rights than to actually do anything to liberate anyone. Talk is cheap and it makes one feel so superior.

And these are not kids, they are adults, many of them in their 30's.

And you know what? Treating them like infants and victims or baby killers and torturers is condescending and patronizing.

terrye said...

peter:

And the amazing thing is that the very people most likely to burn a flag, show their butts in public, call a soldier a war criminal and compare the president to Hitler are the very ones complaining about the country's reputation.

I wonder if they think Michael Moore's masterpiece F911, [which was such a big hit in the foreign markets] helps our country's reputation?

I know when I think of that slug standing up in front of an audience in Paris or London or Berlin and saying 'the dumbest guy in here is smarter than the smartest American' I get all goose bumpy with pride.

At least he is spreading manure and making millions doing it, instead of shaming us all by spreading democracy.

markg8 said...

Sure Petey I've been to lots of places and talk to foreigners all the time. There's also the polling numbers. Admit it Bush is a pretty unpopular guy and Blair couldn't even get his "90 day without trial" bill through your own House of Commons. We here in the West used to be looked up to for our adherence to human rights. Ask any Eastern European how they felt about the Helsinki Accords. Not anymore thanks to George Bush and Dick Cheney. Now they've given our enemies a tremendous propaganda victory by condoning torture. They can say we're no better than they are. That's a gutter I'm ashamed my government has taken us into.

markg8 said...

To all that I say so what? We have bases all over the world and there was no valid reason to go after Saddam and mire the US Army down in an expensive demoralizing quagmire in Iraq with no end in sight. Especially when we had just begun a war against another insidious enemy, Al Qaeda. That war, the legitimate war is also at a stalemate.

Bush had a 90% approval rating in this country a week after 9/11. 81% of Democrats supported him. When he made that first national speech on TV afterward I just prayed he wouldn't stumble over his words or get that deer in the headlights look and was relieved when he didn't. Like it or not he was only presdient we had.

And now he's down to 36% because he pissed that support away on invading
and occupying a country that never attacked us for reasons that don't hold water. And he has the hubris to blame his problems on Democrats? Gimme a break.

Peter UK said...

Mook
"Sure Petey I've been to lots of places and talk to foreigners all the time."
I'll take that as a no.

Terrye,
The Mooks of this world think that selfdenigration makes them popular,they yearn for another Vietnam so that they can wallow in self loathing.
There is no realisation that the debacle of Vietnam lost America the respect that keeps the barbarians beyond the frontiers,that the Iran Embassy and Somalia reinforced this view and that bin Laden saw you as the "Weak Horse".
If the Democrats can pull the double and walk away from Iraq,the gates of hell will be opened,America will lose all influence in the Middle East,there will be a vacuum filled by whoever is most powerful in the region,probably our friends in Iran who wish to "wipe Israel off the map"
BTW How do we know this isn't abu Mooq

markg8 said...

Petey I'm proud of my little contribution to end the war in Vietnam, there's no self loathing involved.

Now for others, like maybe some of the contributors here, there may be regret for their opposition to that war. If you're looking for self loathing I'd check out some of the people who have gone over to your side.

It must be tough for people who believe in evolution, think government can actually be a force for good in people's lives, who participated in the civil rights movement and support a woman's right to choose to side with Pat Robertson and Pat Dobson in backing George Bush. But that ain't me babe.

terrye said...

Peter:

I do not want the people of Iraq who have trusted us and taken us at our word to be abandoned for the sake of politcal expediency on the part of the Democrats.

There is no honor in that. If the left thinks our reputation is in shreds now, I wonder what they think people would think of us if we just abandoned the people of Iraq to the likes of AlQaida and Zarqawi?

Maybe they think Zarqawi was a preschool teacher before the invasion, but I think he is doing exactly what he was brought to Iraq from Afghanistan to do.

markg8 said...

I think Zarqawi was doing what he came to Iraq to do before we invaded Iraq. He was at his camp in the no fly zone in the north arranging attacks on the Kurds. Twice in 2002 the DOD had him and his cohorts dead to rights only needing the order to drop the bombs and both times the administration called 'em off. Why? They needed him as justification for the war.

Once again get back to me when Bush gets serious.

markg8 said...

And what exactly are doing to protect the people of Iraq from Zarqawi and Al Qaeda? Our troops stay in their bases unless they go off to the border for a sweep. Do you think even the Sunnis will stand for these foreigners blowing up civilians if the occupiers leave?

Peter UK said...

"Petey I'm proud of my little contribution to end the war in Vietnam, there's no self loathing involved."

No regret for the millions that were murdered sent to re-education camps,who died trying to escape across hostle seas,who perished in inhospitable jungles?
Those who died fighting the North Vietnamese,but were betrayed and left helpless by a Democratic Congress?
What DID you do to end the Vietnam war other than the usual self indugent protest party? Burn a few flags,smoke some dope,drop some acid,march together living on the tax dollars of you parents and those fighting.
What a pathetic bunch you boomers were.

Peter UK said...

"Twice in 2002 the DOD had him and his cohorts dead to rights only needing the order to drop the bombs and both times the administration called 'em off. Why? They needed him as justification for the war."

Make your mind up Mook,is it WMD or Zarqawi?

Peter UK said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter UK said...

This fellow appears to be seriously dead

Peter UK said...

Terrye,
They don't really believe anything,Vietnam was the defining moment of their lives,just out of school,sex drugs and rock and roll and sticking it to the man.

These were heady times ,the lost youth of boring middle aged hippies,nine to five mortgage slaves with a brood of kids that use their parent's Dylan records a drinks coasters.

"Born to be Wild" they croon to themselves they comb the straggling greying locks over wrinkled foreheads,a quick burst of air guitar,Foxy Lady", they are ready for the customers at Walmart.

All we have here is "On More Time"
Pathetic!

gumshoe1 said...

"This fellow appears to be seriously dead."

______________


Key fugitive Saddam aide 'dead'

One of Saddam Hussein's closest aides, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, has died, Iraq's former ruling Baath party says.

______________

sorry,Peter.

i'll wait for a second opinion.
Baath Party ain't gonna cut it.

markg8 said...

Yeah no shit Petey. It's alittle late for takin the Iraqi Baathist party at their word.

gumshoe1 said...

PeterUK -
has a lot more
than juvenile taunts
to offer on the board.

in your laser-like
lexical glory,
you seemed to have overlooked
the word "perhaps".

BTW,are you really 49?

Peter UK said...

Mark Garrity seems to be a little "underjoyed" at the possiblity of Ibrahim al-Douri's demise,why?

Surely as an anti-war proponent Mook would welcome the neutralisation of one of the key elements prolonging conflict?

Unless his name is Mooq,then everything he says fall into context.

Peter UK said...

Gumshoe,
"BTW,are you really 49?"
No of course he's not,it is his "Get out of jail card" if anyone says he should be serving.
It also allows him to get Vietnam war credibility

markg8 said...

As welcome as the news of this guy's demise might be it's silly of Petey to trumpet a Baathist press release as proof. Aren't these the same guys who brought us Saddam Hussein and Baghdad Bob for cryin out loud?

Petey I can get you a good deal on Iraqi dinars. Currency speculation is a tried and true method which can be used to bolster our new friends' economy and your own nestegg. These bills are backed not only by the full faith of the new Iraqi government but by great pots of oil under the country. At it's current value the dinar has nowhere to go but up! It should be part of every patriot's portfolio. Don't wait, this is a limited opportunity, send a self addressed stamped envelope for your free information today!

markg8 said...

Well let's see how can I prove I'm 49? My first record album was a live Beach Boy's LP. I think it was recorded in Santa Barbara CA. They had pics of Mike Love I think it was on a little Honda motorcycle they brought out on stage as a sound affect for one of their songs. I liked their striped shirts. My mom thought it was funny when I asked if we could go to Surf City on vacation. I also liked the odds of two girls for every boy.

I was in Miss Hansen's second grade class the afternoon the Principal called all the teachers down to the office on the PA. She came back within minutes visibly shaken and announced President Kennedy had been shot and school was letting out early, we were to go straight home. All the kids thought it had to be the Russians and this meant nuclear war.

My Dad used to be a sales manager at a truck dealership. One of the perks
is we got a new Ford company car every year. One bright spring day he brought home a new Thunderbird with the wraparound seats in the back, a '61 I think. My mom and Mrs. Davenport hopped in the front seat and all we kids hopped in the back for spin around the neighborhood. A butterfly landed on the hood ornament, life was good.

In 1966 he brought home a new LTD with one of the first 8 track tape players. I think we only ever had two tapes for it, it would skip to the next track in the middle of a song but it was cool. That car always reminds me of the Little Elephant Walk song.

Peter UK said...

Mooque

The post says "appears",you do know what that means,don't you?
Must be galling waching your Ba'athist and al Qaeda allies go down,it obviously worries you because you have made such a big deal out of it.Who is going to be left to defeat America and bring the humiliation that you traitors are so eager for?

Peter UK said...

Mooque,
You apppear,there's that word again,to come from a decent family,how come you ended up like this? Your parents must be distraught.

Peter UK said...

Regime change has caused Iraq's economy to boom

markg8 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
markg8 said...

Um Petey I thought I reposted this earlier. Depite the fact that the the Nessen article is based on an analysis by Rubin of the AEI and the AEI is part of the rightwing echo chamber let's assume for the sake of argument it's true.

Who is actually running these companies and where did they or their relatives get their seed money? In the old Iraq nobody made a dime let alone got rich without Saddam knowing about it and getting a taste. They were usually his cronies.

A less rosy scenario than Nessen's could explain this newly created cellphone and internet industry as part and parcel of a communication network that not only that suppliments and helps coordinates the Baathist insurgency but also provides it with an abundance of IED triggers.

In a nation where unemployment is still at 40% to 50%, electrical service is still sporadic at best, kidnapping is rampant, and in at least 4 of the provinces where 50% of the people reside a war and the resulting lawlessness still prevails I think I'll take Mr. Rubin's analysis and Mr. Nessen's glowing conclusions with a large mountain of salt.

Having said that I have no doubt the Iraqis, being the best educated and most secular of Arab peoples with a big pot of oil to sustain them stand a good chance of making a decent country for themselves if everybody else would just get the hell out and leave them to their own devices. That goes for the US and the jihadis alike. I doubt these hungry capitalists, if they exist, will stand for foreigners like Zarqawi's kids messing with their road to riches if the occupation leaves.

Peter UK said...

Mook
Just pop your qualifications in economic matters in your next comment.
Degrees,successful business experience,economic journalism etc.

Two little niggles one it is riposte,repost is doing it again,
It is obvious where the money is coming from,the Middle East is awash with the stuff,it is inward investment...you know the very thing you advised.

markg8 said...

You'll notice the deleted post above it? I meant "reposted" as I wanted to do a little editing from the response I left at the WaPo so it addressed this blog.

What qualifications do you have Petey? Do you disagree that cellphone and internet cafe networks can be used to coordinate attacks on coalition or our Iraqi allies?

Are you not aware that cellphones - along with garage door openers - are
the primary means of detonating IEDs which are by far the most common method of attack used against our forces?

Peter UK said...

Yes and cars can be used as bombs,aircraft can be flown into buildings,butchers knives can be used to decapitate people,a rock can be used to crush someones skull,where do you want to go back to Mook? You would have found the stone age scary.

markg8 said...

Twit the fact of the matter remains IED's triggered by cellphones and garage door openers are the weapons of choice used against our forces. Not airplanes, carbombs, butcher knives, or rocks. So gloating about the glut of cellphones in Iraq as a sign of burgeoning capitalism isn't exactly too bright is it?

I know you're obsessively compelled to naysay anything I write but for God sakes man quit making a fool of yourself. It's unbecoming and frankly it's getting boring.