missing text image: sites/all/themes/obs_2007/img/reply.gif
Anonymous (not verified) says:
I skimmed through the early parts of the article -- about how John McCain is old, and Bush's approval ratings are low -- looking for the part about Iraq. In particular, since the title advertises some assessment of recent progress there, I found what I was looking for only in the final paragraph, where the author asserts that violent civilian deaths per day have averaged
--over 50--
in the first two weeks of January. Now, granted, sources tend to vary, but unless there has been a new study published in Lancet (which is impossible because it takes at least 18 months to get anything done in academia), this number strikes me as being too high. After all I, along with all of the foolish and gullible masses for whom the author clearly has no respect, had thought that violent deaths there had been much lower than this (owing to the surge - its stated goal being to improve security, i.e. make violent deaths number go down).
Sure enough, after checking my usual source, www.iraqbodycount.org (not exactly pro-white house) I found that in fact violent deaths have not been over 50 on any single day in the first two weeks of January, save for the 1st. The average for the 1st through the 14th is
--actually about 25--
which is what the rate was in mid-2004, and incidentally, is about a third of the murder rate in South Africa, after adjusting for total population. (www.southafricabodycount.org anyone?)
In summary, no wonder the author is confused as to why the masses seem to be fooled by the "propaganda" of the surge: He doesn't believe the numbers himself. If I also believed that violent deaths had not gone down, that this was just a story spun by the white house or pentagon, I too would deride the masses as being gullible and foolish for believing it.
What really blows my mind is that I found this on RCP. I normally assume that they've done such a nice job of selecting articles that I can click on anything and it will make a decent argument. (That's exactly why I clicked this one -- I was interested to see what an anti-progress viewpoint would sound like in the present climate, and there haven't been very many lately.) Instead I just got lied to. (And reminded that John McCain is old -- what's next? Dick Cheney heart problems? What does it feel like to actually hate someone?)
I skimmed through the early parts of the article -- about how John McCain is old, and Bush's approval ratings are low -- looking for the part about Iraq. In particular, since the title advertises some assessment of recent progress there, I found what I was looking for only in the final paragraph, where the author asserts that violent civilian deaths per day have averaged
--over 50--
in the first two weeks of January. Now, granted, sources tend to vary, but unless there has been a new study published in Lancet (which is impossible because it takes at least 18 months to get anything done in academia), this number strikes me as being too high. After all I, along with all of the foolish and gullible masses for whom the author clearly has no respect, had thought that violent deaths there had been much lower than this (owing to the surge - its stated goal being to improve security, i.e. make violent deaths number go down).
Sure enough, after checking my usual source, www.iraqbodycount.org (not exactly pro-white house) I found that in fact violent deaths have not been over 50 on any single day in the first two weeks of January, save for the 1st. The average for the 1st through the 14th is
--actually about 25--
which is what the rate was in mid-2004, and incidentally, is about a third of the murder rate in South Africa, after adjusting for total population. (www.southafricabodycount.org anyone?)
In summary, no wonder the author is confused as to why the masses seem to be fooled by the "propaganda" of the surge: He doesn't believe the numbers himself. If I also believed that violent deaths had not gone down, that this was just a story spun by the white house or pentagon, I too would deride the masses as being gullible and foolish for believing it.
What really blows my mind is that I found this on RCP. I normally assume that they've done such a nice job of selecting articles that I can click on anything and it will make a decent argument. (That's exactly why I clicked this one -- I was interested to see what an anti-progress viewpoint would sound like in the present climate, and there haven't been very many lately.) Instead I just got lied to. (And reminded that John McCain is old -- what's next? Dick Cheney heart problems? What does it feel like to actually hate someone?)