Just shows you Mark Twain was correct. "There are lies, [bleep]ed lies, and statistics."

Unfortunately there is really nothing we can do to dispell the inaccuracies that we hear from the MSM or the left, since the MSM pretty much controls the news and since the left presently "has the floor", they'll be in lock step to promote the liberal agenda.

Speaking of deeply suspect -

As any good columnist (I use the term lightly) knows, you have nothing if you don't have a source. Where did Mr. Langley get these numbers? Everywhere I've looked have shown wildly different totals, both higher and lower.

So, despite his premise being questionable, we'll see if his point is at least sound.

While flirting with Orientalist "otherness" to explain away the violence, he concludes that it was media-pressure on the body counters.

Does this not sound ridiculous? Why would morgue employees feel they need to satisfy news outlets and thus exaggerate death numbers? It isn't like it will increase their exposure or otherwise benefit their interests. Unless you want to argue that they are like old western undertakers egging on the gunfight to increase business, which is frankly idiotic.

While I have voiced bigfoot's same post here merely days ago (not by Twain, btw), the process behind statistical analysis is valid. When there is such an outlier as QT's "August" numbers, it is most likely a bad data set, not some vast MSM conspiracy.

All that blood and destruction we see every night on Fox is nothing more than pure Hollywood. Car bombings are nothing more than scenes left over from the movie "War of the Worlds." Our soldiers coming home wounded are simply actors from Platoon.

When will the last 25%, a population made up of neocons and war profiteers admit as did Republican Senator Chuck Nagel "Bush’s war and the McCaine doctrine are formulas for the biggest foreign policy disaster this nation has ever witnessed."

yet this QL individual readily admits that this all may be due to a counting error. surprisingly, the author does not reference nor cite the source of the data anywhere in the piece. that does not diminish the legitimacy, no, but it does not provide the reader any ability to check the data nor the context in which the data are reported.

Josh,

Name some of the villages and actions where Army and Marines units have engaged insurgents. Describe for us some of the shoot-outs, successes and failures.

16% of the military describe themselves as being Democrat (and the percentages are lower in the Army and Marine Coprs). Our friends and relatives are over there. Chances are, your are not. We hear raw news. Chances are you don't as virtually no embedded reporters exist anymore and if they do, their stories are not shown.

In short - I challenge your knowledge of the situation on the ground there. What has worked and how have we changed out tactics. I'm not looking for a glib insultful reply and I'm not calling you names. I'm hoping you will actually research and get back to us.

conscriptor,

No one is keeping YOU from assembling these public and easily obtainable statistics. Since you rarely believe anything WE say anyways. Look into it and tell us if it's accurate or not.

I'd love to see some of the liberal posters actually read up on whats going on in Iraq themselves rather than having to continually educate them. As they never believe me anyways.

Deleted - Stupid comment

Hey, Kahn? I'm gonna bet you didn't see this story in either the Military Times OR the L.A. Times (where I got it), but this is just out. From the January 7, 2007 edition:

"BURIED IN THE NEWS last week was one of the most potentially significant stories of recent years. The Military Times released its annual poll of active-duty service members, and the results showed something virtually unprecedented: a one-year decline of 10 percentage points in the number of military personnel identifying themselves as Republicans. In the 2004 poll, the percentage of military respondents who characterized themselves as Republicans stood at 60%. By the end of 2005, that had dropped to 56%. And by the end of 2006, the percentage of military Republicans plummeted to 46%.

The drop in Republican Party identification among active-duty personnel is a sharp reversal of a 30-year trend toward the "Republicanization" of the U.S. military, and it could mark a sea change in the nature of the military — and the nature of public debates about national security issues."

If you would, please stick that in your pipe and, further, smoke it.

When will the last 25%, a population made up of neocons and war profiteers admit as did Republican Senator Chuck Nagel "Bush’s war and the McCaine doctrine are formulas for the biggest foreign policy disaster this nation has ever witnessed."

If youre going to use one senator's opinion as ironclad support for your argument, at least get the name right.

Im wondering if HAGEL remembers the war he fought in, a sparkling foreign policy success that cost America 50,000+ dead, ten years of war and the millions of asians who died after we left? In the pantheon of foreign policy disasters, shouldnt that decade-long event at least get honorable mention?

BTW senator, if you fail to defund the operation then it is your war too. If you are an American, it is your war too. If you give one hoot about whether or not we are successful over there, it is your war too. If those soldiers over there are yours, then the war is yours too.

Hey Cyber

Show me in the article that I just read, you know, the same one that you read by Rosa Brooks, where the military has become more Democrat....nice try pin head.

Whenever this kind of statistic is intentionally omitted from a "story", which it is, the journalist is hopeful of pursuasion.
But nice try anyway.

You conveniently forgot this paragraph:
"The military, while institutionally conservative with a small "c," was not closely identified with a particular political party."

How I know...my beautiful wife was a stringer for the LA Times...that's how. She also was awarded two unprecedented scholarships from KTTV channel 11 and has a BA in Broadcast Journalism...that's how I know.

I think these credentials are proof enough don't ya think Kahn?

Oh, navy, navy, navy. Wipe the drool off your keyboard and listen up, champ: the point of the poll, among many others, showed that even the military, who is traditionally lock-step behind the President (especially this one, for some reason), is finally souring on Dear Leader. They're leaving the GOP in droves, showing a 10% drop in a SINGLE YEAR. In fact, the poll shows much, much worse news for Chimpy. For example:

"It's often written or said in the media that, despite public opposition to the Iraq war here at home, military personnel strongly back President Bush's handling of the conflict. But a poll for the Military Times newspapers, released Friday, shows that more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it.

Barely one in three service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the new poll for the four papers (Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Times). In another startling finding, only 41% now feel it was the right idea to go to war in Iraq in the first place.

And the number who feel success there is likely has shrunk from 83% in 2004 to about 50% today. A surprising 13% say there should be no U.S. troops in Iraq at all.

This comes even though only about one in ten called their overall political views "liberal."

The annual mail survey was conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22. Among the respondents, two in three have deployed at least once to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Nearly three-quarters of the respondents think today’s military is stretched too thin to be effective."

Here's your link, you link-happy monkey, you:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003526245

The upshot? Bush is TANKING even among his most stalwart supporters. Feel free to dig something up for me that shows me that Bush's surge plan is supported by a proponderance of people in ANY poll. Betcha can't, big mouth. In fact, there isn't a single poll that shows Bush is popular in ANY category.

Long story short: everybody hates George.

Anillo,

You are ignoring the "make s*** up as you go along" element in the MSM these days. If you really think that the MSM won't pass on a known lie as news in order to harm President Bush and the war effort, then you've really been living in an alternate universe the past couple years...we have example after example of "fake but accurate" news...

No, not everybody hates Bush, just the libs who dont have any emotion BUT hate...something they have in common with your average islamic terrorist.

Ya see, normal rational people dont refer to Bush as "chimpy". Sure, they might not like the man as POTUS, but they dont equate him to Hitler, Stalin or a monkey; that vitriol is purely from the juvenile, self-righteous libs who condescend as naturally as they breathe .

Adolescent libs such as...well..such as you, who referred in your post to POTUS George W. Bush as "chimpy".

Cyber,
Don't even waste your e-ink on these guys -- they all saw the story (unless they are even less informed that I imagine) they just decided to ignore it because that's how they handle inconvenient news that doesn't fit the B4B narrative du jour.
Daddy-Oh's comment on "how he knows" is also very interesting.
For a site (and a poster) that normally have no respect for journalists or journalism (that's right -- rightwing blogs don't automatically qualify -- as journalism -- or for much respect, for that matter)I'm surprised that someone with a a BA who has submitted freelance articles to a daily newspaper is considered an authority on the industry or profession.
You'll find that same selectivity when it comes to statistical analysis -- if it doesn't fit, it must be wrong.
Lol

Bongos sez: "No, not everybody hates Bush, just the libs who dont have any emotion BUT hate...something they have in common with your average islamic terrorist."

How dare you call our fine military men and women terrorists! For shame!

"Ya see, normal rational people dont refer to Bush as "chimpy"."

Why not? He looks a lot like a chimp. Sorry, but it's true.

"Sure, they might not like the man as POTUS, but they dont equate him to Hitler, Stalin or a monkey."

I equated him with neither Hitler or Stalin. He looks nothing like them. He does, however, greatly resemble a monkey. A mean, retarded monkey. You HAVE looked at him lately, right?

"[T]hat vitriol is purely from the juvenile, self-righteous libs who condescend as naturally as they breathe."

Sorry if it sounds condescending. Gosh, I sure don't mean it to be. Hmmm, now that you mention it, I suppose it COULD be construed that way. I don't imagine any of you ever used derogatory language to describe POTUS Bill Clinton, right? No, of course not. That would be disrespectful and condescending. Who would stoop to that?

"Adolescent libs such as...well..such as you, who referred in your post to POTUS George W. Bush as "chimpy".

I have other names for him, too, but I don't want to break the posting rules I have so studiously honored here at B4B. Shucks, I call him LOTSA things. And, in my opinion, he has earned every one. That's what's so great about this country, Bongo my boy. I am free to describe the president any gosh-darned way I choose.

Ain't it great?

Cyberactor - I posted a link to that story in another string (you turd). You managed to leave out the part that said 16% identified as Democrat. So the drop in Republican to Independent is not as bad as you might think. Note, this is the military as a whole. The Army and Marine Corps (ESPECIALLY the Marine Corps) are very conservative.

So you spent your time looking up something I aready pointed out, left out the part that proved me right, and didn't look up anything on the war.

Note - WHY aren't they saying their Republican? In many cases its because they want to get tougher. Not because they want to run.

Cyber - just to be clear. The military (as a whole, MC, Army, Navy, AF, and CG) says they are 16% Democrat. This has been consistent for years.

In 1004 the military supported Bush over Kerry 4 to 1. Thats 80%.

The Marines and Army are more conservative and have less Democrats than the military as a whole.

Yes - the Republicans have lost ground, but they say they are still conservative. Many I know ARE disapponted with the Republicans and yes, the President. Because they were not allowed to kick the butts of people who were in deep need of it. They don't like the crazy rules of engagement they're under either.

Please- read up on that poll. Read the whole thing, then read up on it at military.com. Read ALL the information. Don't just selectively seek information that backs your point of view. Thats what you say Bush did. You want to be better than THAT, right?

The military may not be happy with the Republicans, but that does NOT mean they don't recognize that the Democrats don't have a plan (or a clue). I wonder what recent news that Democrats are counting on continued milkitary deaths to divide Republicans will do to those numbers. Democrats WANT American dead for their own political purposes. Democrat leaders have said as much.

I think it's clear to many why they also want to get rid of the 2nd Amenmdment.

Kahn sez: "Cyberactor -"

Yeeeeees?

"I posted a link to that story in another string (you turd)."

Aw, that's just mean. And I never saw any such link. Link me again, won't you bubba dude? Cuz I missed the whole 16% part of the story. Can't seem to find that little nugget. Be a dear, won't you?

"You managed to leave out the part that said 16% identified as Democrat. So the drop in Republican to Independent is not as bad as you might think."

Well, it's a step in the right direction, at least.

"Note, this is the military as a whole. The Army and Marine Corps (ESPECIALLY the Marine Corps) are very conservative."

Uh, not so much anymore. The trend is NOT toward your party, sad to inform you. Spin it all you like, but the GOP is losing members of the military at a fairly rapid clip.

"So you spent your time looking up something I aready pointed out, left out the part that proved me right, and didn't look up anything on the war."

I wasn't ASKED to look anything up about the war. I was challenging your implication (you left out the important part of the story, too, in my opinion) that the military supports the GOP. They don't.

And someone please explain this piece of drivel: "Note - WHY aren't they saying their [sic] Republican? In many cases its because they want to get tougher. Not because they want to run."

What does that even MEAN?

milkitary - jeeezzzz, I always spot them as soon as I hit post.

Here it is.....

Thrower – the United States military is overwhelmingly conservative. Though at some times (like now) they may not fully support the Republican Party. That does NOT mean they have switched to being Democrats. Only 16% identify as Democrat while even at reduced strenght, 46% identify as Republican, Point?
------------------------------
Military Time Poll Published: Dec. 29, 2006
“While Bush fared well overall, his political party didn’t. In the three previous polls, nearly 60 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Republicans, which is about double the population as a whole. But in this year’s poll, only 46 percent of the military respondents said they were Republicans. However, there was not a big gain in those identifying themselves as Democrats — a figure that consistently hovers around 16 percent. The big gain came among people who said they were independents. “

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php

Further…

Who serves:
“On the socioeconomic side, the military is strongly middle class, Gilroy said. More recruits are drawn from the middle class and fewer are coming from poorer and wealthier families. Recruits from poorer families are actually underrepresented in the military, Gilroy said.
Other trends are that the number of recruits from wealthier families is increasing, and the number of recruits from suburban areas has increased. This also tracks that young men and women from the middle class are serving in the military.
Young men and women from urban areas are not volunteering, Gilroy said. In fact, urban areas provide far fewer recruits as a percentage of the total population than small towns and rural areas.”
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/demographics.htm

Posted by: Kahn at January 16, 2007 05:03 PM

Hmmmm, it seems the libs are having reading comprehension problems today, the operative word is "hate". As I said, there are many people who disagree with Bush, including soldiers, but I doubt their disagreement would be construed as "hate". Again, that is the purview of people for whom condescension is second nature: hackneyed liberals who laughingly believe themselves to be 'revolutionaries'.

Your "chimpy" and "mean retarded ape" terms are neither original nor intelligent, theyre simply on par with those who equate Bush with Hitler, Stalin and a whole host of denigrating character assassinations, both physical and psychological. I understand that you believe yourself to be witty, but honestly you just come off as boringly trite.

And yes, the right to speak as you please is great, and its nice to see that you are using every last inch of rope that is given to you. There is, however, a big difference between having the right and abusing the right merely because you can.

Youre dismissed.

Cyber

"And someone please explain this piece of drivel: "Note - WHY aren't they saying their [sic] Republican? In many cases its because they want to get tougher. Not because they want to run."

That means that ther are dropping the Republican Party because many view it as weak. They think many Republicans including the administration have caved to the liberal constant drone of rhetoric and been too soft. They think you are worse. So, they disidentify with the GOP and call themselves independents. They are dienchanted conservative who see the GOP as not conservative enough.

That, by the way is whats so scary about you people refusing to serve. You are building an EXREMELY conservative military. Many of whom even think those "neo-cons" are liberal. The only way to change that is for the left coast and Ivy League people to start volunteering.

Was that simple enough for you R-Tard?

Let's do a double response! Here we go:

Kahn:

Went to your link. Jeepers, talk about cherry-picking! That poll was overwhelmingly negative about Bush, the GOP in general AND the war. But you chose, being you, to focus on the 16% figure. Shameless, but expected. Hope everyone goes to that link, though. It is very instructive.

Now, to Bongos:

"Hmmmm, it seems the libs are having reading comprehension problems today, the operative word is "hate"."

I thought the operative word was "simian."

"As I said, there are many people who disagree with Bush, including soldiers, but I doubt their disagreement would be construed as "hate".

You are entitled to your doubts, as I am to mine.

"Again, that is the purview of people for whom condescension is second nature: hackneyed liberals who laughingly believe themselves to be 'revolutionaries'."

Read between the lines much, Bongos? I don't consider myself to be a revolutionary. I'm pretty mainstream. Look at any poll. Most of what I believe are the beliefs held by the majority of Americans. Bet you can't say the same.

"Your "chimpy" and "mean retarded ape" terms are neither original nor intelligent, theyre simply on par with those who equate Bush with Hitler, Stalin and a whole host of denigrating character assassinations, both physical and psychological."

Yawn. Calling Bush "Chimpy" as I often do, is NOT on a par with calling him "Hitler." Chimps are generally benign creatures, if less intelligent than humans, who should be left in their natural habitats, unemcumbered by the human world. It is when we demand that they act like humans that they become angry, irate creatures who lash out. I'm very fond of your garden-variety chimp.

Hitler, on the other hand, was a mass-murdering psycopath. I don't believe that Bush is one of those. I think he's more like a chimp. Get it now?

"I understand that you believe yourself to be witty, but honestly you just come off as boringly trite."

Sorry you think so. Would a banana cheer you up?

"And yes, the right to speak as you please is great, and its nice to see that you are using every last inch of rope that is given to you. There is, however, a big difference between having the right and abusing the right merely because you can."

What, precisely, is that difference? See, only a Republican would equate utilizing a right with "abusing" it. Typical wing-nut talk.

"Youre dismissed."

And you, sir, are not.

By the way. I'm not happy with the Republicans either. I think we invaded on the cheap and failed to react when the Iaraqi military melted away - with their weapons. I think that we were wrong to not go through all the major cities at the same time. We were wrong to not KILL Sadr and his followers when the hold up in that mosque a few years back.

Oh yes Democrats, I am not happy with the GOP either. But that does not mean I buy into your cynical and controlling party either.

Kahn explains his twisted logic:

"That means that ther are dropping the Republican Party because many view it as weak."

So far, so good.

"They think many Republicans including the administration have caved to the liberal constant drone of rhetoric and been too soft."

Bzzzt! Oh, I'm sorry! Thanks for playing, but I'm afraid you're dead wrong. If that were so, then the number of people in the poll that support the war would actually be UP. It is actually DOWN. So your theory, Kahn, is just a big pile of doody.

"They think you are worse. So, they disidentify with the GOP and call themselves independents. They are dienchanted conservative who see the GOP as not conservative enough."

Or, perhaps, they are wising up to the fact that the GOP is run by a bunch of corrupt, idiotic, management-averse, tin-earned buch of whackos. Good for them, if a little too late.

The poll of the military more supports MY theory than yours, Kahn, spin it how you wish.

Yawwwwwwwn, is that the best you can do, parse the argument by claiming your slur against Bush isnt as bad as what others call him? LOL! No wonder I laugh when I see what has become of the DFL; gallows humor but humor nonetheless.

Here endeth the lesson.

Liar.

Hush, cyber! Adults are speaking. Run along now.

LTB, you have engaged in a useless endeavor; trying to enlighten liberals is akin to the ancient Spartan practice of 'tree fornicating', the end result you are seeking just isnt going to happen. Trees and liberals have the same quality of intellect.

Anillo: "Where did Mr. Langley get these numbers?"

I believe he got them from this month's Iraq index. I believe it was pg. 9 of the pdf version.

But I have a question: I seem to recall that the definitions of "violent death" and "murder" in Iraq were modified at some point during the summer. Does anyone else remember that, or am I hallucinating?

Perhaps it's worth noting that the Military Times is owned by Gannett, who also own USA Today and have Donna Shalala on their board. Always consider the source, even if "fake but accurate."

The "chimpy" stuff is quite amusing, but I think quite off-base. I don't think the President looks like a chimpanzee, and, frankly, wouldn't care if he did; it's his leadership abilities that interest me more than anything else; quite a refreshing change from governing by the latest poll. The President was also a jet pilot in the Texas Air National Guard, which is quite "un-chimpy."

Cyber, cyber, cyber

Unfortunately you didn't answer the question regarding where the dems are in the military. Have they increased percentage wise, or has the military become apolitical due to the infighting here at home?

It just seems to be way too convenient for the kook left to leave out crital aspects of statistical analysis soley for the purpose of promoting their liberal agenda.

Additionally, I've noticed that your awful compelled to cut-n-paste lots of topics/argumentative rhetoric from your favorites like the LA Times (did you know their down 30% subscriptions) etc. but when are you going to grow up and use your own mind, rather than the one you obviously purchased from the Air America website...Oh, I forgot...they're BK.......BWAAAHAAAA. I finally had a good laugh today...thanks!

Mark -

I get what you are saying, but to lump all the mungheads in the MSM into "liberal" is utterly mistaken.

Where were all these lefties in the run up to and first year of the war? The main stream media, of whom I am no fan, is out of touch indeed; some on the left and some on the right.

-No one with a voice or corporate sponsorship questioned the WMD or Saddam planned 9-11 motivations to invading Iraq.

-No one listened to Scott Ritter or Hans Blix or MI-6, or any of the other numerous intelligence and military experts who argued that Iraq was not a priority threat to the US, let alone in the region.

The fact is that the MSM undermined the truth and the facts. Instead of doing their job, corporate media was too busy trying to sell ad time and come up with sexy graphics that had flags and explosions and trumpets; anything to get a watcher’s attention.

Your assertion that the media is “out to harm Bush” is partisan at most, myopic at least. The media’s job is not to disseminate the government’s message; it is to dissect, analyze, and examine the agenda of those in power – Democrat or Republican.

Where was your vitriol for the MSM during White Watergate, the Monica Lewinski fiasco, McCain’s illegitimate black baby, or any other time the media didn’t swallow the kool-aid poured by some political leader?

The media you so vehemently abhor passed many a known lie to the American people and the world as this administration made its case for war in Iraq, which is a fact that very few people are willing to admit to this day; this blog's present company included.

On the leaning of the US military –

Everyone will naturally spin the latest Military Times numbers as they want. The fact is that as a service member (which I know there are many here) you learn to separate your chain of command from your personal ideologies. You are taught that in the service to your country, you are neither Democrat nor Republican; you are American.

We have the luxury as citizens to identify with one of the two parties we must choose from, and the fact that the military is traditionally aligned with a conservative stance is done so on antiquated assumptions about the values represented by the ideology.

But where in the “conservative” ideology is democratic modernization theory, internationalism, government intrusion into privacy, federalization of educational standards, federalization of sexual identity, and nation-building?

Exactly.

Kahn –

Don’t throw stones.

Sorry, had to go check-in a Pinewood Derby Car.

16% of the military is Democrat. That's measure across the whole military officer and enlisted and all services.

The ground forces, well that’s not fair half the Marine Corps is air wing and the Army has a huge aviation arm is more conservative than the rest. The officer corps, at least in the Marines (but true of all the Army officers I know personally) is more conservative than the enlisted ranks. Lots of the enlisted people are kinda young and don't necessarily know where they stand politically yet. I believe I read that 9% of Marine officers identified as Democrat (running on memory here).

Whatever the exact numbers, the military is NOT Democrat and is NOT liberal. Why not? Could it be tied to the fact that as a whole conservatives also give more to charities in time and money? Is that because conservatives take personal responsibility for the betterment and security of the nation? The recent lowering Republicanism in the military is a riff between conservative friends. These people did not defect to the Democrats

Lets think about this. Liberals want everyone taxed to pay for feel good programs. Programs to make them feel less guilty. Yet they (statistically) don't give to charity nor volunteer their time. They don't serve in the military either - and that includes the Reserves and importantly the National Guard. So, they’re not really involved in helping during natural disasters either.

So – who doesn’t have a personal stake in this (to paraphrase Barbara Boxer)? The military is us – conservative. It’s us, and our kids, and our relatives, and our friends. Not DEMOCRAT. There is a widespread belief that we could have won Viet Nam if allowed to fight and if not undermined by the liberals and the liberal press. There is widespread belief in the military now that this has happened again. They see a Republican administration so gun shy (no pun intended) from years of constant shrill criticism, that they pulled punches on Iraq – leading to the current mess. They blame BOTH parties. Frankly, so do I. Where we differ from the liberals is, we don’t think running home (even in a phased and orderly retreat) is the answer. So – Democrats are wrong to assume that anger at how the war has gone means we agree with THEM.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the original topic about whether or not violence in Iraq increased over the summer.

How did the discussion denigrate into soldiers political affiliation? Further, does it really matter what their political affiliation is? Does it make them any less patriotic or courageous if they are independent, democrat or republican? Does it make them any more patriotic or courageous if they are independent, republican or democrat? I think not. First and foremost they are Americans.
So why are we arguing over this?

Both sides (Democrats & Republicans) on here seem to identify themselves first and foremost by their political affiliation.

I myself identify with being an American.

Our brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters in the military are putting their lives on the line (it does not matter if you agree with the foreign policy or not), while we sit here and spend hours upon hours arguing over their political affiliation.

Uh huh. I was pointing out that the liberal press is sipping whiskey in the Green Zone counting dead while conservatives fight the war, re-enlist at record rates, and tell US (their friends and family) that the press is full of crap.

But your post would make sense for someone whose party has a whopping 16% of the military solidly behind them.

You've aleinated the military, the gun owners are afraid of you (and loath you). I'd start making friends with SOME armed group if I was you.

As for the debate over the MSM skewing the statistics in Iraq, Im sure most of you are aware that under section 9010 of the DoD Appropriations Act, US PL 109-148, DoD is required to submit a quarterly report to congress concerning 3 sections on Iraq. Section 1.3 contains the statistics for security, sectarian violence, etc.
Those reports dating back 2 yrs can be found here:
http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/Iraq_Reports/Index.html
Sometimes the DoD site can be slow.
Mirrored here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2006/index.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/index.html

No - IT, not skewing the stats - mis-reporting them. Using the wrong phrases to compare them.

And, to me at least the problem that they report absolutely nothing else.

But hey, did you actually manage to make it all the way through those reports you posted the links to? So.... how did the raw numbers look?

Anillo,

Ritter was a paid shill for Saddam, Blix was a dimwit, MI6 - like all intelligence agencies - supported the conclusion that Saddam was a WMD threat (remember, we only went with the WMD reasoning because Blair wanted the UN to be on board, and the UN's only brief was vis a vis WMDs). And, also, there was not a single instance of anyone in the Administration making any link between Saddam and 9/11 - that particular leftwing lie is very durable, but nonetheless a lie.

As for the MSM - you must have been inattentive...the MSM was saying we could never get to Baghdad...the MSM proclaimed Iraq a failure when we had to pause to regroup just before taking Baghdad...the MSM reported that Baghdad's museums had been looted under the nose of the American military, even though they hadn't been...in short, the MSM has been miserably anti-American in its reporting on Iraq from the get go.

Kahn,
I have been reading the quarter reports since 2005. My son is in Iraq. So I pay quite a bit attention to the reports released by DoD.

As for my interpretation of the statistics, thats exactly what it is....an interpretation. I posted the links so that people on here could read the statistics and draw their own conclusions. Its your responsibility to read the reports and draw your own conclusions, not for me to provide an interpretation of the reports for you.

However section 1.3 for Q3 06 and Q4 06 is pretty clear.

Instead of reading facts and figures from blogs, CNN, Fox, etc, I read directly from the source that compiled the statistics.

I sense a undercurrent of hostility from you and I am not sure why. I just provided a link to the official statistics that others in the media interpret.

Same old, same old. Same old name-calling, for example, from the same old "Why Do You Claim We Are Hateful?" crowd. Chimpy. Grow up. This kind of infantile name-calling and obsession with superfical physical characteristics may impress your own level of political commentators, but it just proves to the adults in the crowd that the Left ain't got much to offer if this is what they think is important.

I am a conservative, who votes Republican because, of the two parties, this is the one which is most likely to govern in the way I prefer. I could just as easily register as a Libertarian, or an Independent. It would not mean I am planning to vote for a Democrat.

What the emotion-driven radical Left does not get is that when a person, an individual, or even a party, disappoints us, we don't just freak out and change our entire personal and political philosphies and stampede to the other side. When your political choices are based on solid and enduring peronal and political philosophies, those philosophies don't change just because one man, or even one administration, are not able to meet our hopes or expectations.

That would be silly. That would be stupid. That would be a hysterical illogical hyperemotional overreaction which would not be relevant to the situation. In other words, it is exactly what a Lefty would do.

But the fellow travellers of the Left are so oriented to personality, they just can't comprehend that others are more pragmatic, more intellectual, and more dedicated to concepts and ideels than to cults of personality or emotion. It's just a different way of looking at life.

There are several factors at play here. One is a dissatisfaction with the Republican Party. Not with Bush, but with the national party structure. There is a feeling that it has been poorly led, has lost touch with the heartland, and is continually outmanuevered by the Left. I know that I personally refuse to donate money to the RNC. I will donate to individuals, but not to the party, because I think they need a major overhaul.

But at the same time, I'm not so stupid I am going to vote against my own best interests, and the best interests of my country (that is to say, for a Democrat..) just because I want to shake up my own party. There may be some out there who would say "I am so mad you I am going to poke myself in the eye with a sharp stick" but Republicans aren't going to do that.

And we have to remember, a HUGE amount of the dissatisfaction with the GOP, and with Bush, lies in frustration at them being too easily out-manuevered on the PR front, and too soft on core conservative issues. Give us a kick-ass conservative who has a better grasp of political and media strategizing and you will see the ranks of registered Republicans soar.

IT - I was just asking. I didn't have time to read them.

Mark -

You still didn't dispute that Ritter and Blix were right, and your assertion that all intelligence agencies were concurrent on Iraq's WMD status is simply wrong.

People within the CIA, MI-6, the UN and many others made their case but were sidelined in the hoopla and false sense of urgency championed by the White House.

And do you not recall VP Cheney's many instances of assuring that Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague? He is in the administration, and he made the link very explicit.

Not to mention the notorious "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" rhetoric which was meant to convince Americans that Saddam's nuclear capabilities would soon reach the homeland.

And please, link me to these various instances of anti-Bush MSM pessimism during the sprint to Baghdad. While I remember embedded reporters addressing the occasional tactical hurdles, no where was it argued that the invasion was a failure.

IT, as a follow up to your last poat. What does your son tell you the feeling is about how the war is reported?

Sorry Kahn, I had misinterpreted your comment.

Unfortunately the data reported in section 1.3 does indeed state that violence has been increasing at a dramatic rate.

From the executive summary of Q3 '06 the # of weekly attacks was up 15% and the # of Iraqi casualties was up 51% compared to Q2 '06.

From the executive summary of Q4 '06 the # of weekly attacks was up 22% compared to Q3 '06 and the # of Iraqi casualties were up 2% compared to Q3 '06.

Kahn,
Oops I missed your last post.
My son is on his 2nd tour. We have never discussed the reporting of the war by the media.
Neither have the 3 other members in his squad that dont have immediate family (My wife and I sponsor them on leave, since they usually dont have family to stay with)
They are on patrol 12hrs/day 6-7 days a week.
Conversations consist of mostly when he is coming home, if his commitment is going to be extended, where are the hell are the chip's ahoy that we sent 2 weeks ago. hahaha!

I think civilians talk more about politics then soldiers. The few times we have discussed politics his position is this: His best friend is black, listens to rap (which he HATES), is a die hard democrat. Yet he would step in front a bullet without thinking to save him. His best friend would do the same. He doesn't care who is a republican or who is a democrat. The only thing he knows is his squadmates would lay their lives down for him and he would do the same.

That is sort of why I posted the question as to why people are arguing over a soldiers political affiliation. It has absolutely no bearing on anything in this country. They do their job and make incredible sacrifices on our behalf.