Unicorns and Rainbows

About two weeks ago we had a target come up to my section for nomination that to me appeared pretty straight forward. Intel reporting stated that he was a weapons dealer for the Taliban and one of the reports mentioned a large amount of ammunition that he was acquiring.

The lawyer who reviewed the packet, however, determined that the reports just weren't quite good enough for them to fully approve the target. I argued the point about the report that mentioned the large quantities of ammunition and how from an analyst's perspective it was clear that he wasn't using that ammunition for good things. I was quite animated about it in fact and if you know me you know that I don't usually get worked up about things. The lawyer remained stubborn.

During the weekly update to the general about our target nominations the lawyer brought up her concerns about the target, specifically that only one report stated he was working for the Taliban and that the report of acquiring large quantities of ammunition didn't necessarily mean he was affiliated with the insurgency. Her argument was lengthy and I will admit, a bit convincing.

The general then looked at me for a rebuttal after the lawyer was finished, and I stated: "he's obviously not using *insert ammunition amount here* for unicorns and rainbows."

There was a bit of a stunned silence in the room as you can imagine. The general's reply?

"This target's good (for lethal nomination). Next."

I love beating a lawyer with nonsense.

Unless the ammo really was for rainbows and unicorns...oh hell, what have I done?