Originally Posted By ecdc No wonder we keep hearing that the surge is working. They just stopped counting all the deaths... <a href="http://www.kansas.com/219/story/54627.html" target="_blank">http://www.kansas.com/219/stor y/54627.html</a> Car bombs excluded from Iraq death toll In counting the victims of sectarian violence, the U.S. leaves out a common form of attack. BY NANCY A. YOUSSEF McClatchy Newspapers WASHINGTON - U.S. officials who say there has been a dramatic drop in sectarian violence in Iraq since President Bush began sending more American troops into Baghdad aren't counting one of the main killers of Iraqi civilians. Car bombs and other explosive devices have killed thousands of Iraqis in the past three years, but the administration doesn't include them in the casualty counts it has been citing as evidence that the surge of additional U.S. forces is beginning to defuse tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. President Bush explained why in a television interview on Tuesday. "If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings, we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory," he told TV interviewer Charlie Rose. Others, however, say that not counting bombing victims skews the evidence of how well the Baghdad security plan is protecting the civilian population -- one of the surge's main goals. "Since the administration keeps saying that failure is not an option, they are redefining success in a way that suits them," said James Denselow, an Iraq specialist at London-based Chatham House, a foreign policy think tank. Bush administration officials have pointed to a dramatic decline in one category of deaths -- the bodies dumped daily in Baghdad streets, which officials call sectarian murders -- as evidence that the security plan is working. Bush said this week that that number had declined by 50 percent, a number confirmed by statistics compiled by McClatchy Newspapers. But the number of people killed in explosive attacks is rising, the same statistics show -- up from 323 in March, the first full month of the security plan, to 365 through April 24. Overall, statistics indicate that the number of violent deaths has declined significantly since December, when 1,391 people died in Baghdad, either executed and found dead on the street or killed by bomb blasts. That number was 796 in March and 691 through April 24. Nearly all of that decline, however, can be attributed to a drop in executions, most of which were blamed on Shiite Muslim militias aligned with the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Much of the decline occurred before the security plan began on Feb. 15, and since then radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered his Mahdi Army militia to stand down.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Dishonesty and disingenuousness from the Bush administration when it comes to Iraq? Say it isn't so!!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I think it would only be dishonest if they tried to conceal what they were doing.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan That is not the only way it would be dishonest. >>Since the administration keeps saying that failure is not an option, they are redefining success in a way that suits them<< This is exactly right. And it's what I've been saying for three years at least -- long ago, it became clear that the "Mission Accomplished" is a moveable feast. The administration can declare "victory" any which way they want, and could have since Saddam was overthrown. This is actually a sign that the end of this war may at long last be drawing near. Sure, it's just a face-saving tactic, totally political, and it has no basis in reality, but that never stops this administration. They're so lost in the woods at this point, nothing they do surprises me. Nothing. Not even the last of their supporters surprise me anymore with the way they go along wiith anything this administration says. It's a delusional way to live, but there's no changing it. The Kool Aid was too powerful, apparently.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh It doesn't surprise me that many on the left will believe any claim made against the Administration, no matter how flimsy the evidence, or interpret any decision made by them in the worst possible way.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <It doesn't surprise me that many on the left will believe any claim made against the Administration,> It's not being 'on the left' -- it's just being able to think about what's going on beyond 'stay the course.'
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka Why don't you post something that proves the original post is untrue, Doug, instead of trying to derail the thread (as usual)?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Because I'm not disputing the facts, just the liberal spin on the facts. I didn't realize that pointing out there might be another interpretation to events rather than the liberal belief that the Bush administration is evil was derailing the thread.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Let's see. It isn't like Baghdad was inundated with suicidal car bombers before we invaded. The U.S. invasion gave new life to the sectarian violence/car bombings that have arisen, no question. To purposely not report deaths from car bombings is to disingenuously ignore the total casualties of war. Ignoring them like this won't make them go away, either. This is not spin either, it's the truth.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <To purposely not report deaths from car bombings is to disingenuously ignore the total casualties of war.> Yes, it is. But that's not what is happening. The administration is still reporting deaths due to car bombs; they're just not including them, as the article notes, "in the casualty counts it has been citing as evidence that the surge of additional U.S. forces is beginning to defuse tensions between Shiite and Sunni". <This is not spin either, it's the truth.> It's more like a half-truth.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan So, Douglas -- you think this is a perfectly legitimate, fair way of judging whether the "surge" is working -- by not counting the sorts of things that neccessitated the surge to begin with? To me, it would be a little like arbitrarily deciding to stop counting the use of, say, meth and pot and then declaring that the war on drugs is having a huge effect.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Or perhaps a bit like not including the costs of the iraq war within fiscal budget estimates and the resulting deficit spending. Hard facts are to be obscured and finessed away whenever possible. "Truth" is whatever they say it is.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So, Douglas -- you think this is a perfectly legitimate, fair way of judging whether the "surge" is working -- by not counting the sorts of things that neccessitated the surge to begin with?> Since the surge is primarily designed to lower sectarian violence, and not to prevent the car bombings, yes. <To me, it would be a little like arbitrarily deciding to stop counting the use of, say, meth and pot and then declaring that the war on drugs is having a huge effect.> That's a bad analogy. It's more like the government announcing a program to decrease meth use, and then leaving out the number of pot busts when determining whether it's working.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Or perhaps a bit like not including the costs of the iraq war within fiscal budget estimates and the resulting deficit spending.> While they may have occasionally delayed announcing the costs of the Iraq War, those costs were included in the deficit eventually. As much as some would like to believe it, the Bush administration hasn't intentionally hid anything. Except of course, for matters of national security.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Douglas, really, you should be ashamed for writing this. You won't be, but you should. What won't you excuse Bush for? You've come up with some beauties before, but you're bucking for hall of fame status lately. I'm going to a conference for a few days. By the time I get back, I expect we won't be counting deaths from IEDs either, and then maybe we can say the war's over and we can get out of the hell hole we created. Unbelievable.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Since the surge is primarily designed to lower sectarian violence, and not to prevent the car bombings, yes.<< When President Bush began speaking about the surge back in December, he said ""I want the enemy to understand that this is a tough task, but they can't run us out of the Middle East -- that they can't intimidate America." Now, is that directed to sectarians? Or is it speaking to terrorists -- car bombers, for instance? It sounds to me like it is directed towards terrorists. Time and again we;ve been told "the terrorists can't be allowed to win" in Iraq, and yet, we're now just going to stop counting a major cause of the death in Iraq. All along we've been told it's all part of one great struggle, but now it's not. >>That's a bad analogy.<< No, it isn't.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Since the surge is primarily designed to lower sectarian violence, and not to prevent the car bombings, yes.> There's no way in heck that the orchestrators of this war think that their techniques are that granular -- why should we? 'Let's not count the number of car bombings' my eye. Are car bombings not being inflicted between Shia and Sunni? Maybe they could rework the numbers on American soldiers being maimed. Only count the number of soldiers who've lost both legs in the conflict. This administration must think we're really stupid.
