Thats how NPR reported it this evening also. Though they did say violence had been down lately...

You Republicans are engaged in an endless war against facts that you will in the long run loose.

-LiberalMind

For people who talk about history all the time you seem willing to ignore recent history.
Iraqi civilian death are so far nearly identical as those in 2005.

So, here is what you are gloating over.
We reduced troop strength in 2006 and violence went up. We increased troop strength in 2007 and violence went back to what it was in 2005. Hmmm, what does that tell you?
It tells you we are the ones stopping the violence, not the Iraqis.

what,

Extraordinarily two dimensional thinking, there - we've also got a new commander and a new set of tactics...and that is what is driving the difference.

Deleted - off topic

"dramatic decrease in both U.S. and Iraqi civilian deaths in the past two- to three-months". Yet "2007 now the deadliest year for U.S. troops in Iraq".

So what this is saying is that although the number of deaths is decreasing, there was so many deaths before in the year that the yearly total is the highest.

Seems to me your édramatic decrease" is more of a return to the normal rate of death. Nothing more thant the end of a peak, if you will.

What you are saying is akin to saying stopping to bang one's head against a wall is pleasant.

And while it is better than the alternative (continuing to bang your head against the wall), I still think the numbers, when compared to smilar numbers (e.g. the yearly casualty figures) are more relevant than the local trends. Or do you want to post a graph of monthly american deaths tolls in Iraq since the beginning of the war, so we can play with a full deck here?

oh wait here it is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DoD_PERSONNEL_%26_PROCUREMENT_STATISTICS_-_Personnel_%26_Procurement_Reports_and_Data_Files_-_GLOBAL_WAR_ON_TERRORISM_-_OPERATION_IRAQI_FREEDOM_by_month_March_19%2C_2003_through_September_1%2C_2007_-_killed_in_action%2C_died_of_wounds%2C_accidents.jpg

As you can see your "dramatic decrease" is indeed the descent from a record peak. It is a record not only inn its actual "height", which is the third deadliest month ever, but in its "width" as the peak lasted three months where the most deadly sprees lasted only one.

The trend of the graph(which is determined mathematically, as the straight line that minimizes the sum of the squares of the differences between said line and the graph for any given month, not pulled of a ...hat) is represented as a red line and shows a steady and slow increase of the casualties figures.

So you know what? I do not believe it is a case of media bias here. I believe it is a case of the media doing its job, and you trying to spin this to suit your own facts-challenged worldview.

Cordially, french student.

P.S.
5 minutes of research were needed to write this post. Had Leo OR Mark wanted to give you the full picture here, they could have. Go see the graph.

Off Topic AGAIN neologizer? Let me guess, was it something about Bush?

The high number of deaths this year are primarily from the beginning of the year as the surge was being implemented. The numbers for the last several months have declined dramatically, and that does not bode well for Democratic candidates who have been on the wrong side of this war for too long. Well except for Hillary, she has taken both sides, like any true leader would.

Here's some more great news from Iraq:

In other operations along the Tigris River Valley, Coalition forces detained six suspects believed to be associated with senior terrorist leaders, foreign terrorists, weapons procurement and al-Qaeda in Iraq media activities. “Foreign terrorists are responsible for more than 90 percent of suicide bombings in Iraq, and we are relentlessly targeting Al-Qaeda’s foreign terrorist networks,” said Maj. Winfield Danielson, MNF-I spokesperson. “Increasingly, Iraqi citizens are helping us find these networks and Iraqi security forces are taking the lead in dismantling them.”

Deleted - off topic

Posted by: neologizer at November 7, 2007 01:34 AM

Come on, man, focus.

You Republicans are engaged in an endless war against facts that you will in the long run loose.

And you lefties will cling to the one fact that supports your views.

Leave it to the good folks at CNN TNN to find a speck of feces in a mountain of roses.

Your point is understood, but sometimes fecal matter is used as a fertilizer, promoting new growth, sturdier plants, and beautiful blooms in that "mountain of roses".

but sometimes fecal matter is used as a fertilizer, promoting new growth, sturdier plants, and beautiful blooms in that "mountain of roses".

Yeah, picking fly sh*t out of a pepper shaker would have been a better analogy.

What?,

I thought that Senator Schumer said that the reduction in violence is because of the Iraqis, not US military forces. And that our forces are incompetent. Now you tell me it is because of us.

I'm so confused. I don't know who to believe, you, or a US Senator.

/moonbat mode off

new addition to our list of oxymorons: Liberal Mind.

I think my favorite was the effort to make the decrease in violence appear to be a negative by pointing out that Iraqi gravediggers were hard up for business.

I'm waiting for an "environmental alert" headline: VULTURES STARVING IN IRAQ: lack of dead bodies creating crisis in scavenger population.

I'm waiting for an "environmental alert" headline:
Posted by: Almiranta at November 7, 2007 02:33 PM

You have to love this one you called it so here you go.

http://www.looking-glass.co.uk/animalsinwar/

So what was reported in the article that isn't the truth? They mentioned that violence has gone down.

And you lefties will cling to the one fact that supports your views.

Of course, 1 > 0, so you guys still come up as the losers in the fact-based realm.

Etudiante Francais makes a very good point. This year has been the bloodiest ever. TRUE. Violence has been down in recent months. TRUE(which despite what you might think, liberals are happy about too)

The bulk of you claim deaths were up early in the year because the surge was being put into effect. Since death rates have fallen, it is evidence the surge is working. However, if the death rate spikes back up in the coming months, what would that say about the surge? Just wondering?

"dramatic decrease in both U.S. and Iraqi civilian deaths in the past two- to three-months". Yet "2007 now the deadliest year for U.S. troops in Iraq".

Mark, I can see the liberal media bias here. How dare the liberal media try to report all of the "facts." The bias is so obvious even someone as "fair and balance" as Bill O'Leilly couldn't miss it.

A-10 writes,
I thought that Senator Schumer said that the reduction in violence is because of the Iraqis, not US military forces. And that our forces are incompetent. Now you tell me it is because of us.

I'm so confused. I don't know who to believe, you, or a US Senator.

So you only believe Schumer when he tell you what you want to hear. Good selective listening a-10.

This leads me to a larger point I neglected in my first post. Mark wrote this:
"Just wanted to let everyone know, since Leo beat me to the punch, that this one counts as "What Media Bias? Part 106"

Of course, the big problem here is that Leo cites media sources that Mark has accused of bias in the past. Thus Mark, by supporting Leo's point has inadvertantly accepted the news sources cited as being fair portraals of happening in Iraq.

Or Mark is saying they were bias when they didn't report stories that made him feel good but now they are not bias because they are reporting stories he likes.
Ultimately, Mark and any other person on this cite who claims the media has a liberal bias but believes what Leo wrote has just shown they are willing to accept any source that supports their view even if that source is one they have in the past claimed to be bias. Pretty sad.

So Mark, this should end you "What Media Bias" series.

However, if the death rate spikes back up in the coming months, what would that say about the surge? Just wondering?

Posted by: Gaijin at November 7, 2007 11:48 PM

--------------------------------------------------

And what happens if it doesn't is that a Lose/Lose for the Democrats being you are so secured in the fact we cant win this war and we must bring the troops home?

Leo,

Can you even try to debate the FACT that 2007 was the deadliest year for U.S. troops in Iraq?
Your trying to preach a conspiracy theory where none exists. Only to show the only feces is the feces in your confused head, and how you can not comprehend what is going on around you.

USA

P.S. Go ahead and debate the fact you coward.