"If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian,"

[RiverStone]

Just a reminder that the military facts that have been manipulated (per the story below), are the SAME facts David Patraeus touted as TRUTH with all his fancy charts and graphs. It's nothing but a dog and pony show (smoke and mirrors) - I would not be surprised if Rove had a hand in it.

* * * * * * * * *

Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
September 6, 2007

The U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts within and outside the government, who contend that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore negative trends.

<snip>

Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing and contradictory. "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.

Senior U.S. officers in Baghdad disputed the accuracy and conclusions of the largely negative GAO report, which they said had adopted a flawed counting methodology used by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Many of those conclusions were also reflected in last month's pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."

link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090502466.html?hpid=topnews


* * * * * * * *

How can there be any credibility from an administration that lied us into war in the first place?

General David Petraeus's charts might have well come from flawed voting machines; all the facts are manipulated! The question is --- how do we get John Q Public to see through the veil of lies? :shrug:

[Dr.Phool]

1. Didn't they record the ones who were shot in the side of the head?

Or in the chest? The ass?

[Javaman]

2. Those are accidents. nt

[auburngrad82]

3. They also do not count car bombings as casualties nt

[TomInTib]

4. Also uncounted are Sunni on Sunni, Shia on Shia.

That's why Anbar has been declared "safe and secure".

They're not counting the merely fucking crazy Sunnis who are being killed by the insanely fucking crazy Sunnis.

[JackRiddler]

5. As for your question

How to get John Q. Public to see through the lies?

They already do.

The real question is, how to get them to do anything about it. Or, for that matter, what is to be done?

Obviously voting in the Democrats didn't make a rat's hair of a difference, as they have voted to continue funding the war.

So perhaps you should ask instead, how to get the Democrats (meaning the politicians of this party, not the well-meaning followers) to actually be different from the Republicans and vote against the war.

Or else, how to replace these traitors with a real party for change.

[RiverStone]

6. And as for your question

So perhaps you should ask instead, how to get the Democrats (meaning the politicians of this party, not the well-meaning followers) to actually be different from the Republicans and vote against the war.

It's a good one!

We know which Dems caved with last May's IWR vote - we will see who has seen the light with another vote (for 50 fucking billion more war dollars) by month's end. Unfortunately JackRiddler, they ONLY recourse we have if some Dems refuse to do the will of the people who elected them --- is to find a progressive party that does reflect our absolute NON-negotiable priority to end Shrub's war.

Though the dilemma is as disappointed as I am in the Dems, it would be a HUGE disaster to give the rethugs another term in the White House. I fear that my 2 teenage kids will be drawn (along with countless others) into a war with Iran. Hillary is far from my first choice, but she is still preferable to ANY rethug --- Fred, Newt, Mitt, Rudy --- whoever.

We kick the bums out of the White House first, then I'll work toward finding a true progressive Democratic party that represents the people.