New Developments II

[Sonic Youth]

U.S. tally of Baghdad deaths omits car bombs, mortars

By Mark Brunswick and Zaineb Obeid
McClatchy Newspapers

BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. officials, seeking a way to measure the results of a program aimed at decreasing violence in Baghdad, aren't counting scores of dead killed in car bombings and mortar attacks as victims of the country's sectarian violence.

In a distinction previously undisclosed, U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Johnson said Friday that the United States is including in its tabulations of sectarian violence only deaths of individuals killed in drive-by shootings or by torture and execution.

That has allowed U.S. officials to boast that the number of deaths from sectarian violence in Baghdad declined by more than 52 percent in August over July.

But it eliminates from tabulation huge numbers of people whose deaths are certainly part of the ongoing conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Not included, for example, are scores of people who died in a highly coordinated bombing that leveled an entire apartment building in eastern Baghdad, a stronghold of rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Johnson declined to provide an actual number for the U.S. tally of August deaths or for July, when the Baghdad city morgue counted a record 1,855 violent deaths.

Violent deaths for August, a morgue official said Friday, totaled 1,526, a 17.7 percent decline from July and about the same as died violently in June.

The dispute is an important one. With Baghdad violence reaching record levels in July, U.S. commanders warned that the country was tipping toward civil war. They then ordered 8,000 U.S. troops and 3,000 Iraqis to conduct house-by-house searches of Baghdad's neighborhoods in an effort to root out insurgent gunmen and militia death squads.

The program, which began in earnest Aug. 7, included bringing in thousands of American troops from other parts of Iraq in what was seen by many as a last-ditch effort to head off a civil war that many Iraqis say has already begun.

Within weeks of the kickoff of the Baghdad security plan, the U.S. military's top spokesman, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, boasted that the murder rate in Baghdad had fallen by 46 percent and attributed most of the fall to the new security sweeps.

On Thursday, Caldwell revised the figures, posting a statement on the Web site of the Multi-National Force-Iraq that the murder rate had dropped even more — by 52 percent from July.

That claim was contradicted by the morgue figures, which trickled out in accounts by various news organizations citing unnamed officials.

Johnson said he couldn't comment on morgue figures and declined to release the raw numbers on which Caldwell's claim was based. He said the numbers were classified and that releasing them might help "our enemy" adjust their tactics.

"We attempt to strike the right balance, being as open and transparent as possible without providing information that places our troops or Iraqi civilians at undo risk by the enemy adjusting their tactics for greater impact," he said, in explaining the decision not to release the figures.

Johnson said the numbers more accurately reflect the impact of the Baghdad mission: targeting operations of shadowy sectarian death squads, who often use drive-by shootings, torture and executions as tactics for terror, rather than suicide bombings or rocket or mortar attacks.

The distinction in the way those people die is lost on victims' relatives, some of whom suggest the true numbers are higher.

Car bombs daily claim tens of victims, and exchanges of mortar fire are nightly occurrences. Every morning, bodies are discovered, many with their hands and feet bound.

"If you want the truth, even when we hear or see the scenes of explosions, assassinations, or number of dead on TV, we don't really care anymore, our feelings are dead," said Dhiya Ahmed, whose 17-year-old nephew was killed Aug. 11. The teen was walking with a friend near his house when gunmen approached and shot them both dead.

"The numbers are not quite true," said Ahmed. "I bet the actual number is much more."

[criddic3]

Interview

I thought this interview was interesting and fairly in-depth.

[criddic3]

It seems that you like to repeat the old gossip about Rove and Libby, in a vicious circle sense of conscience. What many journalists have concluded is that the fact that Armitage started the ball rolling for reporters like Robert Novak, coupled with Fitzgerald's own dismissal of Rove's and Libby's role in leaking the info which caused the investigation, the case has nowhere else to go. Just because some would like to continue the charade with endless speculation that the revelation means nothing, it doesn't mean that they are right.

Fitzgerald interviewed Karl Rove several times and publicly announced he was NOT going to indict him.

Fitzgerald indicted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, but publicly announced that his indictment had "nothing to do" with the leak or any speculated link to the reasons behind the War in Iraq. The prosecutor himself said this.

This means that neither Karl Rove OR Libby are now suspected of any crime connected to what the investigation was all about to begin with.

Furthermore, the original reason for Joseph Wilson's claims have been long torn down as lies. Hussein DID seek uranium, but he was apparently unsuccessful. The "16 words" in the State of Union of 2003, which stated that "British Intelligence" felt there was evidence to support such a claim, was true. The Senate Intelligence Committee and British Intelligence have maintained that the statement had a "credible basis" in fact. So not only did Wilson lie about this, but he also lied about how he got his job to go to Niger in the first place, saying Vice President Cheney had suggested him, when it was his wife Valerie Plame. Then when the truth was revealed, Wilson started making unsubstatiated claims that the Bush administration was conspiring to destroy him for "blowing the whistle," which was never the case.

So why are you carrying on this incredibly bizzarre rewriting of history by posting articles that still claim Rove and Libby did the leaking and that a conspiracy was conducted to destroy Wilson? It is just not so, if you use logic. If Fitzgerald doesn't believe this to be the case, why should we?

[Sonic Youth]

So sad, Sonic. You fail to admit that I (and those articles) are not the only ones saying its time to put away the Plame investigation. It is solved. It's over. You are stubborn, like me I guess, in your desire to see this administration burn that you will cling to any possibility of it happening. In this case, it's not happening. You were wrong. A lot of people were wrong. When it began oh so long ago, even I feared the worst, but through a series of events --most notably Libby's non-crime indictment-- I saw that the whole thing was politically motivated on Joseph Wilson's part. Maybe you don't see it, but a lot of people now do.

Article I

Article II

Article III

True not all the authors of these articles are Bush-haters, but not all of them have been outright Bush-supporters either. Even the NYTimes had an article wherein they state that Armitage admitted his role.

Let's face facts: No crime was committed here. Plame's name was apparently inadvertently given to Robert Novak, and Novak revealed this in an article, which started the whole thing. Actually Joseph Wilson really started the ball rolling by lying about President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. In any case, the one person actually indicted was not named for any actual crime. It was a fishing expedition to see if Fitzgerald could get more info out of certain people if "Scooter" Libby was indicted. He didn't. He let everyone else off the hook and only cited Libby for the lame "obstruction" charge, which he admitted had nothing to do with what was being investigated. Give us all a break here and stop pretending I don't know what reality is.

Seriously, I may not be a scholar and I don't always argue my case very well, but this one is too clear for all to see.

If you wanna go on believing that something sinister was going on in the Bush administration over Wilson's article, fine. It's your right to think that. But if there was, I really think more would have come from Fitzgerald's investigation by now.

I somehow missed this.

So your game is to make the charge that liberal commentators are saying the Plame scandal is over and done with. Your claim is proven 100% wrong, your source took quotes out of the original context, and the context itself completely contradicted your claims. So, what's your response? Simple. To ingore the fact that the evidence you initially provided was worthless. It's as if you never posted the article in the first place. This is why the "dishonest" label is continuously pinned on you.

Then you deny any wrongdoing took place by ignoring the fact that wrongs DID take place. You give several links to opinion pieces which prove nothing. At least one of them was right-wing, and one of them totally contradicted your point. And now you're pretending that if Armitage accidentally leaked Plame's name, then it's impossible that anyone else could have. You're grasping at straws. As a matter of fact, there is a great deal of evidence saying the opposite is true.

Media Misses the Point on C.I.A. Leak Story

The Armitage Red Herring

If you don't trust the sources above, then just answer to the facts and the rationale. After all, it's what I did when you presented me with that Real Clear Politics article. It's only fair.

You want to act like you're the emperor of reason and logic, while denying reality altogether, knock yourself out, criddic. Don't expect me to fall for it.

[Mister Tee]

Dick Morris? You're quoting Dick Morris? Why not just go to a good unbiased source like Cal Thomas, or the Wall Street Journal ediitorial page?

The side that says "They all stink" is generally the side that's losing.

[OscarGuy]

Wow? The editorial said that? How preposterous. I really don't know ANYONE who thinks No Child Left Behind worked, it's actually encouraged teachers to pass students that haven't learned all they need to on to the next grade just for social reasons. It's actually helping to dumb down our students, IMO.

The Tax Cut didn't benefit anyone but the wealthiest Americans. It actually didn't benefit most hard-working Americans because it didn't help their tax burden at all.

[Damien]

I suspect a lot of people agree with this opinion.

I doubt that many people agree with this:

"And, in a broader perspective, what good has the Republican Congress done since Bush took office? The tax cut was excellent and the good record of the economy bears it out. The No Child Left Behind bill is a landmark piece of legislation that is proving its worth."

[criddic3]

Editorial About Congress

I suspect a lot of people agree with this opinion.

[criddic3]

So sad, Sonic. You fail to admit that I (and those articles) are not the only ones saying its time to put away the Plame investigation. It is solved. It's over. You are stubborn, like me I guess, in your desire to see this administration burn that you will cling to any possibility of it happening. In this case, it's not happening. You were wrong. A lot of people were wrong. When it began oh so long ago, even I feared the worst, but through a series of events --most notably Libby's non-crime indictment-- I saw that the whole thing was politically motivated on Joseph Wilson's part. Maybe you don't see it, but a lot of people now do.

Article I

Article II

Article III

True not all the authors of these articles are Bush-haters, but not all of them have been outright Bush-supporters either. Even the NYTimes had an article wherein they state that Armitage admitted his role.

Let's face facts: No crime was committed here. Plame's name was apparently inadvertently given to Robert Novak, and Novak revealed this in an article, which started the whole thing. Actually Joseph Wilson really started the ball rolling by lying about President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. In any case, the one person actually indicted was not named for any actual crime. It was a fishing expedition to see if Fitzgerald could get more info out of certain people if "Scooter" Libby was indicted. He didn't. He let everyone else off the hook and only cited Libby for the lame "obstruction" charge, which he admitted had nothing to do with what was being investigated. Give us all a break here and stop pretending I don't know what reality is.

Seriously, I may not be a scholar and I don't always argue my case very well, but this one is too clear for all to see.

If you wanna go on believing that something sinister was going on in the Bush administration over Wilson's article, fine. It's your right to think that. But if there was, I really think more would have come from Fitzgerald's investigation by now.

[Sonic Youth]

<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>2,643</span>

The Associated Press

As of Friday, Sept. 1, 2006, at least 2,643 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians. At least 2,102 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.

The AP count is two higher than the Defense Department's tally, last updated Friday at 10 a.m. EDT.

The British military has reported 115 deaths; Italy, 32; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 17; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, El Salvador, four each; Slovakia, three; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Romania, one death each.

[Sonic Youth]

For the nth time, your willingness to believe what you so achingly want to be true has played you for a fool.

Give up, already.

Okay so you tell me why Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has so far come up with NOTHING in THREE years?

Maybe your willingness to believe what you so achingly want to be true has played you for a fool.

You are so sad. LOL!

I just demonstrated that David Corn - you and Jack Kelly's ultimate source of info about the subject - Corn himself just completely destroyed your argument with his own words. Kelly took a quote of Corn's that was completely out-of-context with the statements Corn actually made. And you were clearly misled into a conclusion that was the exact opposite of Corn's assessments.

And what do you do when this is revealed? You just ignore it and try to move on. Pretend it never happened!

You said earlier "I know some will never be able to admit they were wrong."

Good point. When will you admit it?

Or is this more hypocrisy?

[OscarGuy]

Kenneth Starr was digging for a lot longer than that, so keep looking for real reasons.

[criddic3]

For the nth time, your willingness to believe what you so achingly want to be true has played you for a fool.

Give up, already.

Okay so you tell me why Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has so far come up with NOTHING in THREE years?

Maybe your willingness to believe what you so achingly want to be true has played you for a fool.

[Damien]

From The Christian Science Monitor:

POLLS SHOW OPPOSITION TO IRAQ WAR AT ALL-TIME HIGH
Sixty percent also say terrorism is more likely in US because of Iraq.
By Tom Regan

September 1, 2006
A series of polls taken over the last few weeks of August show that support for the war in Iraq among Americans is at an all-time low. Almost two-thirds of Americans in each of three major polls say that they oppose the war, the highest totals since pollsters starting asking Americans the question three years ago. Many of the polls were conducted in advance of the fifth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on Washington and New York.

A new Associated Press/Ipsos poll that surveyed the country, and more specifically residents of Washington and New York, shows that many feel the cost in blood and money in Iraq may already be too high and that Osama bin Laden will never be found. The poll also showed that 60 percent of Americans believe that the war in Iraq has increased the chances of a terrorist attack in the US.

"I think there's a fatigue about the price of doing these activities," said Robert Blendon, a specialist in public opinion at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. "There's also a concern about the competency of how well we're doing them."

Some of the divisions are from political differences. For example, Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to think the cost of the terror fight may be too high and twice as likely to think Iraq is making terrorism worse. And this comes when the nation has gone five years without an attack � possibly making the terror war seem less urgent to some.

Popular support for the war on terror helped neutralize opposition to the Iraq war for a long time, said political analyst Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. "Now the negative effect of Iraq is dragging down support for the war on terror," he said.

On the question of which political party can do a better job of protecting the US, both parties lost support since an April poll. But in another sign of trouble for the Bush administration, the AP/Ipsos poll also shows that more Americans believe the Democrats will do a better job than Republicans, 47-40 percent.

A new CNN poll shows that only about one-third of Americans now support the war in Iraq, with 61 percent opposed. Fifty-one percent of Americans see President Bush as a strong leader, although he doesn't do well in other areas of the survey.

Most Americans (54 percent) don't consider him honest, most (54 percent) don't think he shares their values and most (58 percent) say he does not inspire confidence. Bush's stand on the issues is also problematic, with more than half (57 percent) of Americans saying they disagree with him on the issues they care about. That's an indication that issues, not personal characteristics, are keeping his approval rating well below 50 percent ...

Bush dismissed a question about his popularity during a news conference Monday.

"I don't think you've ever heard me say: 'Gosh, I better change positions because the polls say this or that,'" he told reporters. "I've been here long enough to understand, you cannot make good decisions if you're trying to chase a poll." He added, "I'm going to do what I think is right, and if, you know, if people don't like me for it, that's just the way it is."

A Princeton Survey Research Associates International poll conducted Aug. 24-25 for Newsweek shows that 63 percent of Americans disapprove of the way the president has handled Iraq. A CBSNews/New York Times poll conducted Aug. 17-21 shows 65 percent of Americans disapprove of the way the president is dealing with Iraq. Among those who identified themselves as independents, 67 percent disapprove.

Finally, a survey by Quinnipiac University Polling Institute found that 60 percent of Americans believe screening of people who look "Middle Eastern" at airports and train stations is OK.

Quinnipiac's director of polling, Maurice Carroll, said he was surprised by the apparent public support for racial profiling. "What's the motivation there -- is it bigotry, or is it fear or is it practicality?" he said.

The Quinnipiac poll also found that Americans considered the 9/11 attacks of more significance than the attack on Pearl Harbor. But the findings varied considerably among age groups, with 9/11 being the most important event among those 35 and under, but with Pearl Harbor being more important those 65 and older.

"People have fresh memories of 9-11 and many don't have any memories at all of Pearl Harbor, and those who do don't have fresh memories of it," said Bruce Schulman, a Boston University professor of history and American studies. "We also feel pretty confident that we know how the results of Pearl Harbor turned out, and we certainly don't know what the consequences of 9-11 are going to turn out to be.

[Sonic Youth]

Jesus, it gets worse. I found online the David Corn quote that liar Mike Kelly claims destroys the Plame case, "The Armitage news does not fit neatly into that framework." That's the ONLY bit of information Kelly is able to make his case with, and this is what you based your conclusion on.

You can read the section in its entirety here:

http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2006/08/hubris_the_armi.php

And here's what it says:

"The Plame leak in Novak's column has long been cited by Bush administration critics as a deliberate act of payback, orchestrated to punish and/or discredit Joe Wilson after he charged that the Bush administration had misled the American public about the prewar intelligence. The Armitage news does not fit neatly into that framework. He and Powell were not the leading advocates of war in the administration (even though Powell became the chief pitchman for the case for war when he delivered a high-profile speech at the UN). They were not the political hitmen of the Bush gang. Armitage might have mentioned Wilson's wife merely as gossip. But--as Hubris notes--he also had a bureaucratic interest in passing this information to Novak."

But then, two paragraphs later:

"Whether he had purposefully mentioned this information to Novak or had slipped up, Armitage got the ball rolling--and abetted a White House campaign under way to undermine Wilson. At the time, top White House aides--including Karl Rove and Scooter Libby--were trying to do in Wilson."

Several paragraphs below that:

Armitage's role aside, the public record is without question: senior White House aides wanted to use Valerie Wilson's CIA employment against her husband. Rove leaked the information to Cooper, and Libby confirmed Rove's leak to Cooper. Libby also disclosed information on Wilson's wife to New York Times reporter Judith Miller."


"You own source just lied. Kelly took selective quotations out of context, and proved you wrong.

Admit it. You fell for it.