Why do I say this? Everyday there are articles such as "Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction" at
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
describes how and that W knew as far back as Sept. 18, 2002 that Hussein had no WMD, but deluded himself into a semi-belief that he did have them. Ballplayers continually try to forget their bad games and sometimes make themselves believe that they had 20 points, assists and rebounds in games that they posted nothing, but W's lies to himself and others cost lives and treasure.
Did you know that "Experts Doubt Drop In Violence in Iraq" at
which is just the latest example of how quantitative reality has been ignored by W's "Ministry of Truth" propagandists. It states "The U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts within and outside the government, who contend that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore negative trends.Reductions in violence form the centerpiece of the Bush administration's claim that its war strategy is working. In congressional testimony Monday, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is expected to cite a 75 percent decrease in sectarian attacks. According to senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad, overall attacks in Iraq were down to 960 a week in August, compared with 1,700 a week in June, and civilian casualties had fallen 17 percent between December 2006 and last month. Unofficial Iraqi figures show a similar decrease.
Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing and contradictory. "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq."
Damn it to all that is good and decent in the world 960 is just less than 60% of 1,700, but W's boys pick how to define and calculate the numbers and ratios as "Challenges to how military and intelligence statistics are tallied and used have been a staple of the Iraq war. In its December 2006 report, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group identified "significant underreporting of violence," noting that "a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the sources of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the data base." The report concluded that "good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals."
Why do we let W frame the discussion. He promised in January, just 9 months ago, that if the Iraq government didn't meet its benchmarks that the US would end its support. Now next to no troops being pulled out after 3 more months of unnecessary losses of lives and treasure is labeled as a concession? HOW? WHY?
The article "Slow Motion" at
http://www.slate.com/id/2173537/nav/fix/
states "The New York Times and the Washington Post's late edition lead with word that Gen. David Petraeus is apparently very reluctant to accept any sort of troop withdrawal in the near future, but, if pushed, could be willing to accept a pullback of one brigade (around 4,000 troops) "beginning in January."..
The NYT says Gen. Petraeus might tell Congress next week that he's willing to consider withdrawing more troops in the months after January but only if certain conditions are met. But remember that this could hardly be considered a real withdrawal since they would merely reduce the number of American troops to their pre-"surge" levels of about 130,000. Is this really much of a concession when many have pointed to April 2008 as a date when the "surge" is simply not going to be able to be sustained anymore?"
We want don't like being redundant but Slate-which does an excellent job of summarizing articles with progressive opinions-matching our views states "Today, the WSJ says that unless tours of duty are extended, brigades have to begin withdrawing from Iraq in April and senior military officials say "the actual drawdown is likely to begin sooner." The WP points out today that many had already expected a significant pullback in March or April so Petraues is just saying that "it could be done a little faster." (As an aside, TP loves how the papers make it sound like Petraeus is being oh-so-conciliatory by agreeing to even consider a small withdrawal in January. Could this be part of the administration's strategy to make it seem like Bush was the one that pushed for a quicker withdrawal?)"
Why is the US MSM allowing this to happen? Why aren't they in W's teams' faces constantly about W's January pledge? "Perhaps the saddest (and least surprising) part about all this? Looks like Congress will buy it. "General Petraeus's apparent agreement to a small withdrawal beginning early next year could fit into a narrow consensus that is beginning to emerge on Capitol Hill," says the NYT. As the WSJ and WP mention again today, Democrats and Republicans appear to be coming closer to a compromise that involves some sort of withdrawal sans timeline. The WSJ notes that, in the end, everyone benefits from the (meaningless) agreement because Democrats can say they're helping to end the war, while Republicans can tout a drawdown as a sign that Iraq has improved. Politics at its finest."
This isn't rocket science. Even bin laden in his recent tape mocking W has it figured out. The Democrats need 60 votes in the Senate to block a GOP filibuster and 67 to squelch W's veto. Neither of these numbers are going to be reached if Herr Karl's pollsters determine that enough red staters are still burning their head into the sand as their youth become IED fodder.
"Some military leaders, including the head of Central Command, are particularly concerned about such a slow withdrawal because it would greatly reduce the number of troops available to deal with any other problems that could come up, "presumably including any future confrontation with Iran," says the NYT."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
