Gauging the Success of the Troop Surge

Pardon me while I turn to the war for a moment, I'm hoping someone can explain the logic here. The administration is not counting deaths from car bombings in the Iraqi civilian death counts used to assess whether the surge is working because, as Bush argues, "If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings, we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory."

Let me see if I can give a better justification. I assume they are saying we can't do much about car bombings, so we'll take them as given and only count what we think we can affect. We'll then use changes in the counts for the things we can believe we can control as our measure of success. But as suggested below even those statistics are suspect since most of the decline in deaths the administration cites as evidence the surge is working came before the surge even began. And if a substantial amount of the violence is from car bombings and you are admitting there's nothing you can do to stop them, what is the surge supposed to accomplish?:

U.S. officials exclude car bombs in touting drop in Iraq violence, by Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers: U.S. officials who say there has been a dramatic drop in sectarian violence in Iraq since President Bush began sending more American troops into Baghdad aren't counting one of the main killers of Iraqi civilians.

Car bombs and other explosive devices have killed thousands of Iraqis in the past three years, but the administration doesn't include them in the casualty counts it has been citing as evidence that the surge ... is beginning to defuse tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

President Bush explained why in a television interview on Tuesday. "If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings, we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory," he told TV interviewer Charlie Rose.

Others, however, say that not counting bombing victims skews the evidence of how well the Baghdad security plan is protecting the civilian population - one of the surge's main goals. ...

Bush administration officials have pointed to a dramatic decline in one category of deaths - the bodies dumped daily in Baghdad streets, which officials call sectarian murders - as evidence that the security plan is working. Bush said this week that that number had declined by 50 percent, a number confirmed by statistics compiled by McClatchy Newspapers.

But the number of people killed in explosive attacks is rising, the same statistics show - up from 323 in March, the first full month of the security plan, to 365 through April 24.

Overall, statistics indicate that the number of violent deaths has declined significantly since December, when 1,391 people died in Baghdad, either executed and found dead on the street or killed by bomb blasts. That number was 796 in March and 691 through April 24.

Nearly all of that decline, however, can be attributed to a drop in executions, most of which were blamed on Shiite Muslim militias aligned with the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Much of the decline occurred before the security plan began on Feb. 15, and since then radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered his Mahdi Army militia to stand down. ...

U.S. officials have said that they don't expect the security plan to stop bombings. "I don't think you're ever going to get rid of all the car bombs," Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said this week. "Iraq is going to have to learn as did, say, Northern Ireland, to live with some degree of sensational attacks." ...

Experts who have studied car bombings say it's no surprise that U.S. officials would want to exclude their victims from any measure of success.

Car bombs are almost impossible to detect and stop, particularly in a traffic-jammed city such as Baghdad. U.S. officials in Baghdad concede that while they've found scores of car bomb factories in Iraq, they've made only a small dent in the manufacturing of these weapons. ... A few people with rudimentary skills can assemble one with massive effect. ... [pointer from ThinkProgress]. [Update: cactus at Angry Bear also comments.]

Comments

[STS]

This is a rhetorical question, right? Bush's entire career has been a process of lowering the bar and calling it success.

[Outside the Box]

As I understand it, before the surge there were a lot of bodies found in the street from Sunni gangs fighting Shia gangs. That has gone way down. The Shia gangs were told to stay under cover until the surge is over. The Sunni gangs could not operate as freely anymore, so they concentrated on spectacular bombings instead. Fewer total deaths, but more spectacular mass bombings, including poison gas bombings. The press has a much easier time covering mass bombings than individuals found in back alleys, so bombings get a lot of coverage.

Excluding bombing casualties is a rather silly thing for the President to do though. It makes it seem like he is trying to cook the books to make his case. Since the public already feels deceived about items like the "weapons of mass destruction", making people think he is not telling the whole truth won't inspire much confidence in him.

[Outside the Box]

The surge is supposed to prevent the Shia/Kurd gov from throwing all the Sunni out of Iraq. The Shia/Kurds have become convinced that they will never be safe from Sunni terrorists until all Sunnis are gone. Bush is trying to show them that they can all live together in peace and harmony if sufficient force is exerted to keep the terrorists under control.

This strategy may take a very long time to play out, and cost more than the American people are willing to pay. Despite the fact that many Sunni tribes have now started to cooperate in rooting out the terrorists, many dark days lie ahead.

[calmo]

This reminds me of what counts as a Victory for our Fighter Co-Pilot president:

"If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings, we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory."

Such an unfortunate fixation on victory, on legacy, on winning at all costs...not a portrait of a religious man.
But a self-centered child who has always taken...what he wants: recognition? The Commander in Chief. The Decider. "The President of the United States" seems to have lost its luster for him now that he discovers that it is only the executive branch of the government. (He does sound like a petulant child in response to Reid and the Dem's Iraq funding bill.)

Is there anyone in a lousier position than w, to talk about standards?

[maria]

Bill Moyers had a good program on PBS this last evening detailing how supposed bastions of liberalism and journalistic integrity like the New York Times and the Washington Post became willing, indeed eager, tools in spreading the warmongers' propaganda. One thinks the situation in Iraq could not get worse, but Bush keeps grinding away to make it so. I don't think we have ever had a President as insane as he. Nixon was a model of good sense in comparison. Any other candidates?

[maria]

Hillary the Democrat coward:

By Sam Youngman
April 26, 2007
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said yesterday that there are risks in sending bills to President Bush that cut off troop funding in Iraq and that passing such bills may not be possible."

Yeah, don't do the one thing you could do to bring the war to an end. It is too "risky."

[maria]

Clinton: US might have to confront Iran
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER
WASHINGTON

Democratic presidential candidate and New York Senator Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that it might be necessary for America to confront Iran militarily, addressing that possibility more directly than any of the other presidential candidates who spoke this week to the National Jewish Democratic Council.
**********************************************
Hillary is still a warmonger at heart doing the bidding of the Zionist warmongers. I made it plain that Israel does NOT want the US out of Iraq; that the Democrats are under the control of Israel and that as a result they will NOT get the US out of Iraq. Face it. And don't forget that Hillary is the Democrat front runner. Obama has been pandering to the Zionists too, so don't think he's going to do much different. Get real.

[maria]

If you ever want the US out of Iraq you need an administration that will take back control of our Middle East policy from Israel and put in place a policy that serves the US, NOT Israel. As long as Israel controls our Middle East policy the US cannot do what serves it own interests. Its interests will be subordinated to those of Israel. Period. Face it and get real. Stop kidding yourselves. Read Mearsheimer and Walt. Learn.

[maria]

I'd like to see a roundup of where discredited Neocons have come to rest. Libby is in prison, or is he? Wolfie is heading the World Bank but fighting for his job. Rummy is in limbo, somewhere, doing what? Judith Miller has left the stage; where is she and what is she doing? Richard Perle is ?????? Safire is retired, and I presume living well off his earnings or pension. Others are still churning out Ziopropaganda at little magazines of opinion like Commentary. Others have changed their stripes for the moment and are still afloat, right? A complete rundown on the lot would be interesting.

[anne]

http://www.juancole.com/2007/04/iraq-casualty-numbers-doctored-attacks.html

April 26, 2007

Iraq Casualty Numbers Doctored
By Juan Cole

Since the Bush administration doesn't actually have any good news on Iraq, they are just making it up. It confirms your worst suspicions. They haven't been counting victims of car bombings when they say that violence is down in Iraq! Bush administration spokesmen and officials are just saying that fewer bodies are found in the streets, victims of death squads. But the number of victims of car bombing has actually increased in this period.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government is withholding statistics on Iraqi casualties from the United Nations.

It is official: The real parts of the Iraq War are being treated as imaginary, and the imaginary parts are being treated as though they are real....

[ken melvin]

"It is official: The real parts of the Iraq War are being treated as imaginary, and the imaginary parts are being treated as though they are real...."

The abstract reality and reality abstract ---- deniality.

[Elvis]

Remember what the good book said,
"Feed your head! Feed your head! Feed your head!!!!"

fear and loathing in Iraq.

[MSA]

maria: "If you ever want the US out of Iraq you need an administration that will take back control of our Middle East policy from Israel and put in place a policy that serves the US, NOT Israel."

I disagree. If you want the US out of Iraq, the american people are going to have to start tipping over cars in the streets here.

[maria]

They didn't even do that during Vietnam when there was a draft. Forget it; we aren't leaving Iraq in the foreseeable future:

WASHINGTON - Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in
Iraq, said Thursday that conditions in Iraq may get harder before they get easier and will require "an enormous commitment" over time by the United States.

And the Democrats, afraid of their shadow, led by Hillary the Warmonger, aren't going to get us out either. Face it. Bush and his allies got us in and now we are STUCK for............you guess.

[maria]

Watch the Democrats fold on this one too. You say "boo" to them and they collapse in a panic.

OSLO, Norway - Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she has already answered the questions she has been subpoenaed to answer before a congressional committee and suggested she is not inclined to comply with the order.

Bet they "make" her? I doubt it.

[maria]

Yeah, the Democrats are going to get us out, right? LOL.

http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=10874

The nation was duped by the GOP and now it is going to be duped by the Democrats. America=nation of dupes. A real Dupedom.

[ilsm]

In Vietnam they counted bodies presumably VC and NVA bodies the more the better. McNamara's number crunchers wrongly thought there was a finite number of enemy fighters after which we would win.

In Iraq we figure that the less of them that kill eachother there won't be more to kill US troops or our puppets.

How could more surviving military age youth in Iraq be a good thing.

The insurgent or guerilla's strategy is to survive.

We should not feel good about them not killing echother.

[maria]

Interesting debate going on now between Democrat candidates.

Hillary: "If this President doesn't get us out of Iraq, I will." Nice sidestepping of the issue. Nixon ran on getting us out of Vietnam in 1968 and it took him six years to do so. Poor Hillary: it's difficult to be a warmonger and then pretend later to be a peacenik.

Kucinich: "It doesn't make any sense to demand we exit Iraq and then continue to fund the war." Too too true. But nobody gets it.

Richardson wants Congress to "de-authorize" the war. Then it will all go to the Supreme Court. LOL. (Meanwhile how many more thousands will be dying?)

The Democrats are milling about in confusion over the whole thing. Chickens with their heads cut off. Don't expect anything from them but constant flapping of the wings.

[maria]

Here is a good summary of Bill Moyers program on PBS:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10881

I like his comparison of what the New York Times (Judith Miller) did with what the Hearst papers did in fomenting the Spanish American war.

[maria]

Has the New York Times ever begged forgiveness for Judith Miller or what they allowed her ("little Miss Runamuck") to do? I know they had to get rid of her, but just getting rid of her is hardly enough.

[maria]

I am happy to see that Scott Ritter agrees with me:

Scott Ritter: Calling Out Idiot America
(from the website Truthdig)

The ongoing hand-wringing in Congress by the newly empowered Democrats over what to do about the war in Iraq speaks volumes about the level of concern (or lack thereof) these “representatives of the people” have toward the men and women who honor us all by serving in the armed forces of the United States of America. The inability to reach consensus concerning the level of funding required or how to exercise effective oversight of the war, both constitutionally mandated responsibilities, is more a reflection of congressional cowardice and impotence than a byproduct of any heartfelt introspection over troop welfare and national security.

The issues that prompt the congressional collective to behave in such an egregious manner have more to do with a reflexive tendency to avoid any controversy that might disrupt the status quo ante regarding representative-constituent relations (i.e., re-election) than with any intellectual debate about doing the right thing. This sickening trend is bipartisan in nature, but of particular shame to the Democrats, who obtained their majority from an electorate that expressed dissatisfaction with the progress of the war in Iraq through their votes, demanding that something be done.

Sadly, Congress’ smoke-and-mirrors approach to the Iraq war creates the impression of much activity while generating no result. Even more sadly, the majority of Americans are falling for the act, either by continuing their past trend of political disengagement or by thinking that the gesticulation and pontification taking place in Washington, D.C., actually translate into useful work. The fact is, most Americans are ill-placed intellectually, either through genuine ignorance, a lack of curiosity or a combination of both, to judge for themselves the efficacy of congressional behavior when it comes to Iraq. Congress claims to be searching for a solution to Iraq, and many Americans simply accept that this is this case.

[maria]

I am happy to see that Scott Ritter agrees with me:

Scott Ritter: Calling Out Idiot America
(from the website Truthdig)

The ongoing hand-wringing in Congress by the newly empowered Democrats over what to do about the war in Iraq speaks volumes about the level of concern (or lack thereof) these “representatives of the people” have toward the men and women who honor us all by serving in the armed forces of the United States of America. The inability to reach consensus concerning the level of funding required or how to exercise effective oversight of the war, both constitutionally mandated responsibilities, is more a reflection of congressional cowardice and impotence than a byproduct of any heartfelt introspection over troop welfare and national security.

The issues that prompt the congressional collective to behave in such an egregious manner have more to do with a reflexive tendency to avoid any controversy that might disrupt the status quo ante regarding representative-constituent relations (i.e., re-election) than with any intellectual debate about doing the right thing. This sickening trend is bipartisan in nature, but of particular shame to the Democrats, who obtained their majority from an electorate that expressed dissatisfaction with the progress of the war in Iraq through their votes, demanding that something be done.

Sadly, Congress’ smoke-and-mirrors approach to the Iraq war creates the impression of much activity while generating no result. Even more sadly, the majority of Americans are falling for the act, either by continuing their past trend of political disengagement or by thinking that the gesticulation and pontification taking place in Washington, D.C., actually translate into useful work. The fact is, most Americans are ill-placed intellectually, either through genuine ignorance, a lack of curiosity or a combination of both, to judge for themselves the efficacy of congressional behavior when it comes to Iraq. Congress claims to be searching for a solution to Iraq, and many Americans simply accept that this is this case.

[MSA]

Maria: Exactly we are in agreement. Now actually do something about it. Tip over some cars. Show the world you care.

[maria]

MSA:

Can't do it all by myself; I need some assistance. Will you help?

[calmo]

maria, so many posts...all trashing the Dem's ineptitude and failure to respond more forcefully.
Is this a good strategy? Are you in danger of alienating your audience who may be accustomed to a slower rate of change than the more revolutionary one you are advocating? Do you think that the media is not only an instrument propping up the office and general structure (including it's own role despite some serious evidence of disconnection with the audience) of government but a shock absorber for the actual office holders?
Could be Ritter has not learned anything from his experience, but I am hoping you and others can see that Reid and the Dem's are dismantling this administration one day at a time. Structural change takes decades and to expect your "idiot" audience to do an about-face over night...is idiotic.

[maria]

Well, when so many are dying every day, I would hope moves to stop it would come a lot faster than in a decade. I doubt even "a day at a time" will get us out of Iraq before Bush leaves office and the Democrats had better get that done unless they want this war hung around their necks. Anne seems to think we should leave "immediately" so I doubt my call for speed will alienate her. For the rest I still think, and Ritter agrees with me, that the Democrats lack sincerity in the matter. If they were sincere they would stop dancing around and go for the jugular---cut off the war funds. The fact that they don't do that makes clear their hypocrisy. I might remind you that the front runner is Hillary who says from one side of her mouth that she will get us out of Iraq when she is President (evidently she doesn't see us out before then) and then from the other side, indicates we may need to attack Iran. According any respect to people like this seems...............er,........."odd".

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/washington/15clinton.html?ex=1331611200&en=5fb23776ba644bc2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

March 15, 2007

Clinton Says Some G.I.'s in Iraq Would Stay if She Took Office
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and PATRICK HEALY

WASHINGTON — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a "remaining military as well as political mission" in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing....

[calmo]

Thanks maria, I have no illusions that the MIC has not made inroads into both the major parties...nor that even the 2nd Coming would provoke an immediate withdrawal...nor that anne's stance is not as admirable as it is eternal.
As the economy starts hurting ordinary people, we need to employ our heads and not our hearts...is about where I stand on this deteriorating situation. Acknowledge that the nervous and tired public are ready to contain w and that the media is not yet so inclined...is about how I see the problem. This ends quickly if the Dem's stick to their guns on the time table: the public learns (the media's role in this, huge) that w is not the leader of a democracy but a tyrant.

[lonesome moderate]

Here's an interesting article on the politics behind the new Iraq spending bill in the SF Chronicle. The Democratic strategy seems to be to put political heat on the Republicans by forcing them to vote against even very weak limits on the president's authority. Many congressional Republicans appear to recognize that they cannot give the president a blank check for very much longer.

[maria]

Well I appreciate your sentiments, Calmo, but I think that Bush needs to be knocked off his pedestal or his war shut down before the 2008 elections, or the Democrats will have a hopeless inherited mess on their hands that will pretty much ruin at least their first administration, and might lead to their not having a second. The next administration will begin to have to deal with the pressure of babyboomers on retirement funds, with revising the tax code, and with so much other stuff they hardly will need a war to liquidate in addition. A lot of real problems that have been evaded by this administration will pop up: Russia is getting belligerent; China may well taper off funding our deficit; our stock market, etc. could nose dive. There is an interesting piece by the person who runs Cheney's money for him that the world wide asset bubble will burst in the not too distant future. The next administration will be hit by all the crap that has been accumulating during this one. They need all the luck they can get. Not a sour war.

[maria]

The White House will not attempt to assess until September whether any of the major objectives of the troop increase in Iraq are being achieved, and now accepts that it will take far longer to achieve the results than President Bush envisioned when he announced the strategy, the NY TIMES fronts in Saturday editions.

The timeline administration officials discussed, in on-the-record statements and background interviews, suggests that the White House is now planning to extend the increase in troops well into next year.

That is a radically different timeline from the one envisioned in legislation that passed the House and Senate this week, which the president has vowed to veto.
*************************

And what with the Democrats do about this? I have a hint: it is a 7 letter word beginning with n and ending with g.

[Bruce Wilder]

Maria, Kevin Drum helpfully translates the New York Times article into plain English:

Maliki has no authority whatsoever; the Iraqi troops we've been training for the past three years are still useless; there's no political progress in sight; and in the meantime we're stalling for dear life, hoping against hope that something good magically happens. In Republican leadership circles, this is called a "foreign policy."

The Democrats are in a difficult position. They don't have the votes in the Senate to override a veto or to remove a V-P or President from office. Maria is ready to blame them for being spineless and ineffective. Why? Because they don't have the votes.

They can move other legislation forward, and try to build some trust with their Republican colleagues, which trust can be used later in marshaling the power they now lack. Many Democratic chairpersons in both houses have been cultivating their Republican ranking members. And, the Administration has been directing the troops to play legislative games, which completely undermine such relationships. I don't pay that close attention, but I have noted Jay Rockefeller and Barney Frank both yelling and screaming, because bills they prepared with their Republican ranking members had been the subject of obstructionist party-line maneuvers on the floor. They may not know how to run a war in Iraq, but the Bushies are pretty good at domestic politics and making the Congress as dysfunctional as possible.

And, of course, the Republicans control the Media. Shall we hate the Democrats, because the Republicans control most of the television networks and most of the leading newspapers?

The long-awaited veto is coming, I presume, on Tuesday. Normal English-speakers would headline that, "President veto's war funding", but, somehow, I don't think too many journalists working for the plutocracy have their English-speaking abilities intact. I'd look for somewhat more convoluted spin. Should we blame the Democrats for not being able to control the news media owned and operated by the other Party?

I do not expect the Democrats will be able to stop Bush. They do not have that kind of power: they don't have the votes and they don't have the Media.

The Iraq War situation is deteriorating, and does not require a vote in Congress to continue to do so. The U.S. Army has broken. General Petraeus, has not read his own counter-insurgency manual; his undermanned and under-managed operation is practically designed to blow up in his face. (And, unfortunately, there's going to be lot of non-metaphorical blowing up, going on.)

Meanwhile, the corruption investigations continue to widen at home. The Abramoff case is back from the dead.

The Democrats do not have the power, yet, to stop Bush, but Bush's self-destructive tendencies have not run their full course, yet. Thousands will die, tens of billions spent, and constitutional government may well be lost in the process, but, whether the Democrats can stop him, Bush's further destruction of the country and himself seems assured.

It's perverse of me, I know, but I see that as weirdly hopeful.

[maria]

http://washtimes.com/national/20070427-124842-1706r.htm

Aren't these Democrats wonderful. Now he tells us. Politics over the truth.

[maria]

Bruce: they don't have the votes to cut off the funding for the war? I think they do. They are too chicken to do it. Too many Democrats are still like Durbin who tells us that he kept his mouth shut when he knew the country was being lied into the war. Thanks a lot, Dick Durbin. Thanks a lot Democrat chickens.

[maria]

CAMP DAVID, United States (AFP) -
President George W. Bush warned Democrats Friday not to "test my will" by passing new legislation on a US troop pullout from Iraq after he vetoes a bill passed by Congress this week.

Don't worry Bushyboy, they won't. A frown and scowl from you and the Democrats go running for cover. You've got their number. Don't think you haven't. LOL

[maria]

It is comforting to see how well Bush's war on "terror" is going. Holbrook says Karzai is teetering and might fall and the "terror" in Afghanistan is spreading to Pakistan where there was a recent bombing of an important cabinet official. From Iraq the "terror" seems to be spreading into Saudi Arabia, although the ruthless police there seem to have arrested a goodly number, but there will be many more I have no doubt. The longer the US stays in Iraq the more the terror will spread, although you have to admit that by now it is probably an unstoppable phenomenon. Bush has really used his brain on all this. Yeah, his "brain." We are so fortunate to have had him lead us. LOL

[Bruce Wilder]

maria, you give me a link to a Washington Times (!!!) article playing "gotcha" with Dick Durbin.

(I need to lay down for a moment and recover.) I can scarcely imagine identifying a Democrat for you, Maria, with your ostensible politics on the war, to criticize, who is less deserving of your opprobrium. And, to credit the reporting of the Washington Times!???

The Republican Wurlitzer is, indeed, doing its thing with Durbin. Of course, I don't read the Washington Times, but I saw last night, I think, Chris Matthews discussing this with some other Republican tool. Their thesis: the Democrats are to blame for this war.

It is good to be King. And, it is good to own the Media. Dick Durbin, who voted against force authorization, makes a speech in which he reminds us that the Bush Administration lied us into war, and what the News Media -- and you, Maria, because you are right on board with them -- make of this, is that the Democrats are to blame for the war and can't be trusted.

That's just great.

A smart Democrat, who was right then, and is right now, is to blame. And, Maria is right there next to Rush Limbaugh throwing rotten tomatoes.

In a country with a functional Media and a functional politics, we might be in the process of dumping a Party and a Media elite, who were and are incompetent and corrupt. And, maybe we are in that process. But, it still a near-thing, in a revolution that is far from over.

Dick Durbin is exactly the kind of rational, responsible politician, who should be in the nation's political leadership. (He's the Majority Whip in the Senate.) And, he is exactly the kind of articulate Democrat, who is trying to tell the truth, the country should hear from.

But, the Republican-owned and operated Media has decided to pay "gotcha" and turn up the fake outrage and distort and filter what Durbin says on the Senate floor. Big surprise, there -- this has been going on for more than 15 years.

The bottom line is that the same country, which elected George W. Bush in 2004, has to be brought to a completely different policy and politics than the one a constitutional majority voted for, then. If politicians, who lost to the Moron-in-Chief and his rotten henchmen in 2000, 2002 and 2004 are still a little cautious for your taste, one of the reasons might be your readiness to believe whatever you read in the Washington Times.

[Bruce Wilder]

Glenn Greewald has an excellent column, per usual, in which he addresses the political dynamics of what the Democrats are doing, better than I.

[Bruce Wilder]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/28/sea_change/index.html

[anne]

Ah, we are already behindhand for the New York Times is telling us now the Administration has decided not to gauge the success of the surge. So much for surge gauging. Good grief.

[anne]

We have gone from not only not-counting what does not fit a surge success to simply not-counting. Not that the counts mean anything to such policy-makers anyway, but we do need another Joseph Heller, we really do. Remember, it's like telling government biologists in Alaska not to mention polar bears, now it's not to mention the surge. We are in the post-irony era.

[anne]

If anyone accuses me of mentioning polar bears, I will deny it. I know nothing of polar bears, never have, never want to, never will. Hush, hush....

[Mark Thoma]

This is not a polar bear, so we're safe:

http://www.calvorn.com/images/4_21_07.jpg

[Mark Thoma]

And there's no doubt at all they would find something to count if they thought it supported their case. We would be told those counts are meaningful. I saw that the Iraqi government is, unusually, not releasing new figures on deaths. I don't remember where though so I can't give details.

[anne]

Nice....

Savannah Sparrow
New York City--Central Park, Tupelo Meadow.

[anne]

Mark Thoma remarked, "I saw that the Iraqi government is, unusually, not releasing new figures on deaths."

The announcement came Wednesday from the United Nations Assistance Mission:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/17134253.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

[lonesome moderate]

Bruce - interesting Greenwald column, thanks for that link, as well as your own very insightful comments.

[maria]

Oh for heaven's sake, Bruce. I should resent your putting me in the company of Limbaugh, but it is so silly I will just laugh. Durbin hardly seems to me any model of honesty or wisdom. He knew the info was faked, but he didn't have the courage to speak out. He was a coward. He feared for his job. He put himself ahead of the truth. You seem to think all Democrats should be absolved of all blame in the rush to war. What about the ones, like Hillary, who voted for it? And to say that I claim the Democrats are to blame for the war is simply a lie. You can do better than that. I think my hitting on the Democrats for not using the power they have now to stop the war has gotten to you, so you decide to attribute all sorts of silly ideas to me in revenge. Shame. Mudslinging is not debate.

[maria]

I need to also point out that the fact that the info re Durbin came from the Washington Times is neither here nor there. It was not an editorial; it was information. And even the detestable Times can have truthful information in it. So smearing me for using information published in the Washington Times is another shameful piece of mudslinging on your part. Sad to see you do it.

[Bruce Wilder]

maria, I don't know what to say to you. You are seriously confused.

[maria]

"Dick Durbin, who voted against force authorization, makes a speech in which he reminds us that the Bush Administration lied us into war, and what the News Media -- and you, Maria, because you are right on board with them -- make of this, is that the Democrats are to blame for the war and can't be trusted.

And, Maria is right there next to Rush Limbaugh throwing rotten tomatoes."

Confused about what? That you didn't make these ludicrous statements about me? Simply because I linked to a story in the Washington Times in which Durbin HIMSELF says that he knew the intel leading up to the war that was fed to the public was wrong but didn't do anything about it? And said that he apparently put his own skin above telling the public the truth? You seem to think smearing me is the way to go. Smearing me with lies about my points of view. Probably because I am holding the Democrats' feet to the fire about stopping the war and you adore the Democrats so much you don't mind their political cowardice. That is the only possible explanation for your smear of me.

[maria]

Read what Durbin said again. He said that he knew that the intel being given to the public was a lie, but he couldn't do anything about it because of his position. MY position is that he should have done something about it (i.e., let the cat out of the bag) irrespective of his own skin due to the importance of the matter. He is hiding his cowardice in speaking out behind "I couldn't say anything because I would have broken the rules." Well, there are times when true patriots break the rules, whatever the cost to themselves. Now if you think he should not have broken the rules to tell the truth, fine. But don't call me an ally of Limbaugh because I say he should have. Or tell me because the report of his speech is in the Washington Times it can't be believed. I have lost all respect for you and your methods of argument, if argument a smear can be called.

[lonesome moderate]

The idea that Durbin is somehow unethical, for upholding the oath of secrecy that he swore to when he agreed to serve on the committee, is appaling to me. And to say that he would have saved the country if he had decided to openly commit such a crime (and yes, it is a federal crime) is absurd--he would have simply played into Karl Rove's hands. I can hear it now--"the Democrats are so determined to save their buddy Saddam that they will even compromise our intelligence".

[maria]

I disagree. He was fearful of what might happen to him so he kept quiet. I think he was a coward and "play-along" guy in spite of voting against the war powers (that was easy to do). If you disagree, fine, disagree. He now, IMO, is trying to get points by saying he knew all along. Yeah, but he kept quiet. PS: If a friend of yours committed a murder but swore you to secrecy, would you keep his secret?

[maria]

Lonesome:

I might add that Bruce had a perfect right to disagree with me, as you have done. But what Bruce did. instead, was SMEAR me with various lies, saying I was an ally of Limbaugh, that I blame the Democrats for the war, and that nothing that appears in the Washington Times can be believed, even if it is simply a report of what someone said in the Congress. He owes me an apology. You don't.

[maria]

PS I did not, in fact, say he was "unethical." I implied (in my comment on the link) that he was a coward. Stop putting characterizations in my mouth that are not there. Nor did I say that by speaking up he would have "saved the country". I implied that by speaking up he might have drawn useful attention to the lies being used to sell the war.

[maria]

Lonesome: to rub it in, please quote me where I say that Durbin was "unethical." And quote me where I say he would have "saved the country." Please do.

[Bruce Wilder]

It is a breathtaking public relations move, to feed out a narrative that attacks Durbin for doing his duty, then and now, by implying that he could have stopped those "lies" and the war if he only had the "courage" to speak up. The liars, themselves, are, after all, still in office, still in power.

This little narrative IED only works, after all, as a shaped charge. It supposed to inspire criticism of, and contempt for, Durbin, for not revealing the "lies" without actually damaging any of the actual liars, still in our midst. And, of course, by damaging Durbin for bringing up the subject, it is supposed to make it impossible, politically, for Democrats to go back and examine the details of how the Congress and public were manipulated by the Bush Administration and their supporters in the Congress and the Media.

Obviously, it works, because not only is Maria here doing the work of the Rove, but David Kurtz at TPM did a post this morning. I thought people on the internets were getting smarter about how they are manipulated by narrative frames in the media.

I don't see why maria has so much difficulty keeping perspective, here. Durbin was not one of the politicians, who "bought" the war; he opposed it, and voted against force authorization.

What he learned, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee was not some "smoking gun" datum, which, if revealed, would have stopped the war. What he knew, to take his example, was that the significance of the aluminum tubes purchase was actively disputed among the intelligence agencies, and that the claims about it being clear evidence of Hussein's active nuclear program, being made by then National Security Advisor Rice, among others, were controversial.

Rice was usually very careful with her language, as was President Bush. Rice exaggerated the strength of the evidence, including the aluminum tubes purchase, but she never said that the U.S. had proof positive; quite famously, she argued, that we don't want "the smoking gun" of confirmatory evidence to be a "mushroom cloud over an American city."

And, now we are asked to be "outraged" that Dick Durbin did not violate his oath, did not sacrifice his career to tell us, what? He couldn't rush to the floor of the Senate to tell us that "the intelligence was a lie" because that's not what he knew. What he knew was that the evidence was much thinner and more controversial than Bush, Rice and others were implying in their public statements.

To a very large extent, the thinness of the evidence did become public knowledge, before the invasion commenced. Certainly, the aluminum tubes controversy emerged into the light of day (though your chances of knowing that were much better if you were reading a Knight-Ridder paper than if you were reading the New York Times).

To make Durbin into the villain here, you have to re-write history, to remove all the subtle manipulation, which made opposing the war so difficult to do effectively, and made it so easy for people with lousy judgement to prevail, in the Congress and in the Media. Durbin is trying to draw attention to one of the levers of that manipulation, the handicaps placed on public discussion by our system of intelligence classification and the rules restricting what Senators can know, which Senators can know it, and who can disclose it.

[Bruce Wilder]

I'm not going to apologize to you, maria. I think you got played, by the Republican propaganda machine, you slandered a good Senator for doing his duty then and now, and I called you on it. You should be ashamed, but instead you affect hysterical anger.

[maria]

If you will go back to my original post that simply linked to the story in the Washington Times with my comment that implied that Durbin seemed to prefer to be politically safe rather than tell the truth, and then see the outburst of insults and smears levied at me by Bruce, you can see that something more than just that one link drove him to his frothy retort. I can only suspect that what really got him furious at me was my quoting Scott Ritter earlier on who also says that the Democrats (not to mention the Republicans) in the Congress are in fact doing nothing about stopping the war other than play acting.

This is what Ritter said:

"This sickening trend is bipartisan in nature, but of particular shame to the Democrats, who obtained their majority from an electorate that expressed dissatisfaction with the progress of the war in Iraq through their votes, demanding that something be done.

Sadly, Congress’ smoke-and-mirrors approach to the Iraq war creates the impression of much activity while generating no result."

I agree with him, I think his point is correct and of course it sends many Democrats into a tizzy because it exposes their cowardice and hypocrisy, the pretense that hey are getting us out of Iraq when they are not.

[Bruce Wilder]

I did not see the earlier reference to Scott Ritter.

[maria]

The news pundits tonight are asking "what now?" given that the President has vetoed the spending bill. Easy answer: nothing much. The Democrats will be waltzing with the GOP around this issue for the next year, with lots of smoke and mirrors (Ritter's phrase), accomplishing nothing. They will not get us out of Iraq even though they could if they really wanted to. When faced with a bullheaded SOB who refuses to budge, they flutter about like confused and harmless butterflies. If they win in 2008 we'll still be in Iraq when they take over, and I even doubt that they will get us out then. I regard them as duplicitous in their way as the Bush administration.

[anne]

I can understand well the frustration over this terrible war and occuaption, but the stance of the majority of the Congress so far seems to me to have set an important precedent that may make future such tragedies more difficult to come and I am pleased with the Democratic vote. Also, I am pleased with the anti-occupation stance of John Edwards but a little less so with the more cloudy stance of Barack Obama.