Ratings

In my last post, I referred to several failures on the part of the Bush administration as if they were stipulations of fact. The one I imagine riled the most military nerves would have been the claim that George W. Bush's administration has failed to show any measurable progress in Iraq. For the folks over at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, that's probably enough to qualify me for inclusion into their oft-recited motto:

Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some assembly required.

They sell T-shirts, in case you don't click the link above.

But I thought I might offer readers the chance to evaluate my claim. Here are several measures whereby the United States might have shown progress in the past year in Iraq. Rate each on a scale of 1 - 10, with 1 being "no progress," and 10 being "goal accomplished":

1) Ability to reduce the number of troops in the region
2) Efficacy of the Iraqi National Army
3) Efficacy of the Iraqi police force
4) Ability of the newly-formed Iraqi government to make laws
5) Ability of the newly-formed Iraqi government to enforce laws
6) Strength of the anti-American insurgency
7) Level of personal freedom of the average Iraqi
8) Amount of national treasure, per annum, spent on efforts to "stabilize" the region.
9) Number of civilian Iraqi deaths, per month
10) Number of United States military casualties, per month.

That rating system provides for a possible 100 points. Please leave the score you assess in the comments section.

Why? Because... it's Evolution, baby!

-30-

Update: Since I mentioned nicedoggie.net, I thought it might be appropriate to add a corollary scale. Additionally rate each item based on the complicity of the press, with 1 being "no involvement," and 10 being "completely responsible."

The world will be better off, of course, when all journalists have been lynched, since every alleged failure over the course of this war can be traced back to the anti-American free press... which strangely was guaranteed by the hallowed constitution.