Comments on: The Petraeus and Crocker Testimony-Update

By: Lance

Lance — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:31:58 +0000

You seem to do that a lot

Please back that up. Like various other claims you have made in the last 24 hours about me, I don’t see any evidence of doing that a lot. Certainly not on Iraq. You are busy discounting all positive evidence. I haven’t discounted much evidence at all, positive or negative.

By: Lance

Lance — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:29:31 +0000

Why?

No time. Short answer, those who have spent far more time on this, such as IBC, all show very different numbers. Do you believe their numbers for 2006? Most months look ridiculously low. I’ll need a good reason to look at all the various reports and then this outlier and think it is anything but inaccurate. It certainly isn’t due to bias, the numbers are way too low based on what I have seen.

So, if you have some decent reason for me to conclude that 2006 was far less bloody than I believed I’ll reconsider a lot of things, though it probably wouldn’t change my mind about staying for now.

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:30:36 +0000

You just discount it. You seem to do that a lot. Umm. Why?

By: Lance

Lance — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:25:42 +0000

I discount the AP figures. So that is one report. The IBC data however shows exactly the trend Petraeus is talking about and they don’t even include July and August when the surge had been in the works for a while. The damn thing had just started.

I don’t judge the surge on the raw numbers anyway, but the IBC numbers support Petraeus. This was a plan that envisioned through at least April. This is September. The early returns show some promise. We’ll know more later.

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:07:41 +0000

I agree with you on that, Lance – the anti-war side has not conducted itself well this week.

Question about casualties. Did you see Spencer Ackerman’s analysis of the AP’s and Iraq Body Count’s numbers, and how they’re at a rather stark variance with what is in those slides?

Since April 2005, the AP has tracked Iraqi casualty data by relying on hospital, police and military officials and morgue workers, as well as reporters and photographers at the scenes and verifiable, two-source witness accounts. I tracked down the data that the AP had already reported, compiled it month by month, and the AP reconfirmed it for me to ensure that I didn’t neglect or misunderstand something. Comparing AP’s figures for each month in 2007 to those for its 2006 antecedent — see the first chart — 2007 is more deadly for Iraqis than 2006 was. Looking just at the post-February 2007 surge, the numbers for Iraqi casualties fluctuate month by month, and show no clear decline in civilian casualties.

Again, it is worth considering… since I remain in favor of proper skepticism and multiple sources.

By: Lance

Lance — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:57:49 +0000

There are legit questions. I would have liked to hear him have to account for things more fully. I think he could have and we could have learned some things. I think this confirms my point about the purpose of all the well poisoning. They were not expressing appropriate skepticism, but merely sowing doubt. Democracy will survive Josh, but I don’t have to like it. Now it definitely falls under the slimy tag.

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:44:21 +0000

Yes, indeed who would have. I was disappointed by that as well, because there are legit questions to ask. I would like to know which 2 intelligence agencies reviewed his report, and if either came from outside the DoD… among other, more qualitative ones.