Iraq: Violence 70% Down Since June

[countezero]

Sigh is right.

You're typical, tiresome, in that you are letting your bias intentionally overwhelm your faculties.

Not only is reduction of violence but one of many administration PR assertions in it, the context of its normal presentation in the media - all of the major media in the US - was completely dishonest and misleading.

Right. Everyone else is wrong. You're right. This is a familiar motif of yours. For the record, the article, very near the top, said: "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms." I can't find anyone with any pedigree who disagrees with that assessment. Perhaps you could send me something from this month's Socialist Quarterly or whatever it is you read about Bush's fascism?

And every paragraph in it made explicit and implicit claims of reportage and observation that were false.

Post something that proves this. So far, you haven't been able to. All you've done is rant and proffer your opinion.

We are now supposed to believe that reduction of violence - just that - has been the goal all along. And that the "surge" - without looking too closely at exactly waht that means - is solely responsible for an apparent reduction of violence.

I don't know what we're "supposed" to believe. All I know is that it looks the violence in Iraq down, an essential goal of the surge.

If the reduction in violence proves lasting, which is possible for any number of reasons (as whatever reduction is real has derived from any number of reasons), this administration PR version of events could well become the official history.

So wait, the violence is down? I'm confused. It's not down. It is down. Make up your mind.

But that is not from independent and resourceful reporting, from the accounts of journalists operating as unmanaged and objectively accurate reporters on the ground in Iraq.

And pray tell, how do you know so much about Iraq, specifically what is and isn't true, if there aren't journalists doing objective and accurate work over there for you to read or watch?

And on your planet, propaganda never deals with the framing and reining of negative news.

I have no doubt it exists, and no doubt that it affects certain reports. The problem is you think it affects EVERYTHING and that whenever any positive reporting occurs (or any reporting you don't agree with occurs), it's obvious the result of some massive media control campaign. In positing this, you sound like a kook, pure and simple. You're a man who has allowed his solipsism and mania to overwhelm him, and I really am tired of having esoteric discussions about the Media whenever I or anyone else posts a story about Iraq. It's typical and boring, you're two most common traits. Major organizations like the Times and the Post take pains and spend a lot of money to try to ensure they are giving people an accurate picture. But to you they are all fools, witting or unwitting participants in, what is it you call it? The Big Lie? Yeah, that sounds rational...

The war itself has generated essentially no good news; the W&Co PR spin on the bad news - including flat suppression - faithfully presented by all the major media with little regard for reality or honest reportage, has dominated the US news from Iraq.

Give me an example of suppression. Abu Ghraib? Haditha? What happened there? Suppression not working on those days?

This latest news is no more independently derived from the accounts of honest and objectively reporting journalists free of administration and military management than any other accounts of the war so far.

Let's deal with this bullshit scenario of yours, shall we? For argument's sake, I'm going to allow that the reports (past and present) are all tainted in some way by what you claim. The problem is that does not account for how they are suddenly good reports. In other words, if journalists operating under these same conditions in the past reported nothing but bad news, how do you account for the fact they are now reporting good news? If the basis for their reporting hasn't changed and everything in Iraq still stinks, then the reporting should all be the same, shouldn't it? The fact it's not demonstrates there has been some change, a change that may not be holistic, but nonetheless has occurred in what the media measures.

Of course, I'm sure you're slither out of this by saying the US and others have just "upped" their propaganda efforts to effect Media coverage or something. The only problem with that inane scenario, is it assumes all journalists are fools and requires that they successfully avoided being propagandized in the past (when they were reporting bad things).

 

[iceaura]

Right. Everyone else is wrong. You're right.

Not everyone else. You and the propagandists. Everyone else is where I get the evidence, etc.

And pray tell, how do you know so much about Iraq, specifically what is and isn't true, if there aren't journalists doing objective and accurate work over there for you to read or watch?

One way would be to take Pollack's article, look at the circumstances of its writing, realize that no actual investigation had been involved in the writing of it, and assume that everything in it is BS.

That way, you'd be flatly wrong about only one thing, maybe - that the US military surge had reduced the violence in Iraq overall - and only partly misled about anything else. That would be a far higher ratio of correct info acquisition than anyone who believed the assertions and implications of the article would achieve.

Fortunately, we can do better: we do have some jouranlism from Iraq. Nothing resembling your bizarre fantasy of independent investigators and premier US journalistic pros going wherever they want and talking to whomever they please on the ground, but some actual reports from various sources do make it out - at great risk and after much effort, all commendable. We can discover, for example, that the sort of observations Pollack claimed as a journalist were impossible given the circumstances of his trip. (But all that was covered, with links and evidence and quotes and so forth, in another thread, which your ever-convenient memory seems to have mislaid, or more likely filed as "opinion".)

And people like me have another great advantage - we pay attention to physical events and physical realities over time. Propaganda is a fixed illusion - the world changes according to the reality of its situation, not some fictional version. So the disjunction becomes more and more obvious as time goes by, and new lies have to be invented, different from the old lies, to cover the new situation. So one can learn a good deal simply by comparing the latest agitprop with last year's, in the way that POWs in Germany kept track of German defeats by marking on a map the progression of reported German victories.

We are now being informed that since the surge began in earnest, statistically violence is down in Iraq. This good news is not given to us in that form, however, and in an analytical context - instead, we are informed that the drop in violence is due to the surge, represents progress toward military victory and tactical success in itself, and shows that we can "win" in Iraq.

That version of victory is different from last year's. It is far different from the original version(s). And so we put a pin in the mental map, and consider what has actually happened.

We consider, for example, all of the many possible reasons violence could be down in Iraq with this surge, and which of them represent good news and progress toward something we might want. Some do - great. Others do not. These others are absent from our major media, for some reason - not even considered to reject them.

Give me an example of suppression. Abu Ghraib? Haditha? What happened there? Suppression not working on those days?

Interesting choice. Both those stories were suppressed, managed, delayed, spun, undermined with propaganda releases and planted articles, etc, and remain significantly unreported in the major media to this day. Neither of them involved independent journalists going everywhere and talking to anybody they wanted to, while investigating in Iraq and reporting back to the major media. Both those stories would fit well into conspiracy theories of the kook identity for me you have invented to despise.

As with someone as flagrantly compromised as Pollack singled out for respect, you choose very strange matters to illustrate media independence in the US.

 

[countezero]

Everyone else is where I get the evidence, etc.

Right. The Socialist Quarterly or whatever it's called. Where do I sign up for the objective and hard-hitting news source?

One way would be to take Pollack's article, look at the circumstances of its writing, realize that no actual investigation had been involved in the writing of it, and assume that everything in it is BS.

It's largely anecdotal, but that doesn't mean one assumes it's BS. That's your leap of logic, not mine. I don't think he lied about what he saw or made up what he said people told him, and you have no evidence that he did. So you either believe him or you don't. I chose to believe him, based on his credentials. You didn't. The problem with your stance is that objective news sources that aren't based on anecdotal evidence, but on the best quantifiable evidence we have, seem to support the flavor of his assertions. How disappointing for you and your friends at the Quarterly...

Fortunately, we can do better: we do have some jouranlism from Iraq. Nothing resembling your bizarre fantasy of independent investigators and premier US journalistic pros going wherever they want and talking to whomever they please on the ground, but some actual reports from various sources do make it out - at great risk and after much effort, all commendable. We can discover, for example, that the sort of observations Pollack claimed as a journalist were impossible given the circumstances of his trip. (But all that was covered, with links and evidence and quotes and so forth, in another thread, which your ever-convenient memory seems to have mislaid, or more likely filed as "opinion".)

As I recall, your links were garbage. But if you post them again, I'll look at them. Or maybe I won't. We fought this fight two months ago. I hardly think it's worth fighting again. What Pollack did or didn't observe is part of a larger tapestry, which is being reported and confirmed by numerous other news sources. And as I said before, I'm tired of playing the Media game with you. It may be your ultimate thrill ride, but I think it's typical and boring. You're never going to give an inch on anything, because you're a zealot who is knee deep in the cloudy waters of his own ideology, and you like it there.

We are now being informed that since the surge began in earnest, statistically violence is down in Iraq. This good news is not given to us in that form, however, and in an analytical context - instead, we are informed that the drop in violence is due to the surge, represents progress toward military victory and tactical success in itself, and shows that we can "win" in Iraq.

The Pollack piece might claim that, but I don't think any of my other links have. The Times and the Post simply report the facts and then they tend to talk about the unresolved challenges, such as the disappointing political situation. In other words, I think they are fair and they aren't saying what you purport they do. Maybe you should try reading them again (not that it would make a difference)?

We consider, for example, all of the many possible reasons violence could be down in Iraq with this surge, and which of them represent good news and progress toward something we might want. Some do - great. Others do not. These others are absent from our major media, for some reason - not even considered to reject them.

Well, I don't know what Media you're paying attention to, but whenever I catch a segment on television, there is usually one of your "others" voicing many of the concerns I've seen talked about in this thread. My paper ran a column a week or so ago by Galloway (of We Were Soldiers Fame) condemning the surge as unsustainable window-dressing. So again, I'd argue your self-delusion where the Media is concerned is delusional.

Both those stories were suppressed, managed, delayed, undermined with propaganda releases, etc, and remain significantly unreported in the major media to this day.

They may have been suppressed, but all bad news is suppressed by the powers that be, no matter who those powers are. The point is those stories broke (as I've mentioned dozens of times to you) because of the hard work of your so-called propagandists. And if you think the US administration or the military wanted those stories out there, you're a fool. As for under-reported, that's another of your opinions stated as facts. I read about them in Time, The New Yorker, The NY Times and on BBC and CNN's web sites. Surely these have higher expose than your beloved Quarterly?

Neither of them involved independent journalists going everywhere and talking to anybody they wanted to, while investigating in Iraq and reporting back to the major media.

Then how did they "get out," so to speak?

Both those stories would fit well into conspiracy theories of the kook identity for me you have invented to despise.

No, I really think you are a kook. And you give me plenty of reason for thinking so...

 

[iceaura]

It's largely anecdotal, but that doesn't mean one assumes it's BS. That's your leap of logic, not mine. I don't think he lied about what he saw or made up what he said people told him, and you have no evidence that he did.

He claims to have made observations as a journalist that he could not possibly have made in the presented context, given his itinerary and methods. He misled his readers about the context of what he saw and what people said to him. That misrepresents the meaning of what he saw and what they said. It's a form of lying, in a journalist.

We fought this fight two months ago. I hardly think it's worth fighting again.

Then quit bringing it up, and things like it, as a basis for dealing insult. You don't want the apples, don't shake the tree.

The point is those stories broke (as I've mentioned dozens of times to you) because of the hard work of your so-called propagandists.

No, they broke despite the hard work of my so-called propagandists. This you would know if you had paid the slightest attention to who I was calling propagandists, rather than inventing what I supposedly said to fit your invented identity.

Well, I don't know what Media you're paying attention to, but whenever I catch a segment on television, there is usually one of your "others" voicing many of the concerns I've seen talked about in this thread.

Now you are claiming to have "usually" seen respectful discussion of the possible drop in violence due to the success of the death squads in ethnic cleansing, the emigration of targets, the meetings Chuush mentioned, the political cowing of the statistics keepers, a fialure to report from the air strike zones, the success of Iran in establishing their Iraqi connections in anticipation of the coming division of Iraq, the arming of the Sunni militia in preparation for the future, the ability of al Sadr to wait out the surge, and so forth ?

A genuine analysis of the drop in violence, with the surge as merely one factor, and careful attention to the uncertainty of the measure ?

And along with that, a discussion of not only the unsustainability of the surge, but its failure to achieve its ostensible political objectives, or even make progress toward them ?

Hmmm. Well, you said you see that stuff on TV, "usually", in major media news. Should I believe you? I never run into anyone else who 'usually" sees stuff like that on TV news, and I know what you think you've seen in my posts, so I guess not. You need some evidence.

 

[countezero]

Before I get started, I'd like to thank you for killing another thread with one of your typical tangential rants. You're very adept at this, and you've done here what you've have done on numerous other occasions. I hope others chime in and that the discussion can return to the topic and be more normative, but now that you're rolling on one of your pet subjects, I doubt this will happen. So all hail the thread-killer...

He claims to have made observations as a journalist that he could not possibly have made in the presented context, given his itinerary and methods. He misled his readers about the context of what he saw and what people said to him. That misrepresents the meaning of what he saw and what they said. It's a form of lying, in a journalist.

I'd like some proof, amazing though your opinion is, that Pollack and his partner could not have made those observations. Again, you're essentially charging the man with lying about what he saw and lying about who he talked to. I've seen many people attack that piece, but none of them have claimed what you are claiming and none of them have produced evidence of what you are claiming. And the Times, so far as I know, has not corrected anything the article claimed because of shoddy reporting.

Then quit bringing it up, and things like it, as a basis for dealing insult. You don't want the apples, don't shake the tree.

I didn't bring it up any more than I brought up the aircraft carrier stage play. You obliquely refered to the piece, not me.

No, they broke despite the hard work of my so-called propagandists. This you would know if you had paid the slightest attention to who I was calling propagandists, rather than inventing what I supposedly said to fit your invented identity.

So the reporters who broke these stories aren't part and parcel with the propagandists? That's going to injure your Media is evil theory, given that they worked for large, mainstream organizations like the New Yorker and Time. Or are you arguing that it was your friends at the Quarterly who did all the hardwork?

And along with that, a discussion of not only the unsustainability of the surge, but its failure to achieve its ostensible political objectives, or even make progress toward them ?

That's been discussed in detail in numerous stories, many of them that are positive about the military progress. I've made no positive claims about the political process here. None. Nobody has. My paper ran a story today about our Republican Senator's recent trip to Iraq. Even he has harsh words about the political situation. So it is getting reported. Again, what media are you paying attention to?

Hmmm. Well, you said you see that stuff on TV, "usually", in major media news. Should I believe you? I never run into anyone else who 'usually" sees stuff like that on TV news, and I know what you think you've seen in my posts, so I guess not. You need some evidence.

Well, I'm just chuffed that you don't take my word for it.

Fortunately, there's no need for me to scour youtube for clips to prove my point, though. We have similar remarks that express the sort of skepticism I mentioned in the Times and Post stories I posted. You know, the stories I suggested you re-read to see what I mean? Apparently, you haven't (big surprise). So to make life easier for you and to give you more time to read Socialist Quarterly Monthly (I know it's rather thick), I've scrolled down the page a bit and pulled up a remark your buddy Hype siezed on when he read those stories:

"Let’s be clear: 40 dead American troops is 40 too many... Measuring progress through body counts is wrong. Sixty-five percent of Iraqis support killing American soldiers. There is no national political progress. None. It can only happen when we send a clear signal we are leaving."

Wow. That sounds fairly critical to me...

Couldn't find a transcript, but I remembered this from one of the Sunday shows. I looked for it and found it mentioned on Newsmax (a site I loathe to cite, but having seen actual clips of the episode, feel confident in presenting here):

"Progress shouldn't be measured by casualty counts, body counts," Richardson told host George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week." Stephanopoulos pressed Richardson on the issue, confronting him with points made earlier in the program by Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a Republican presidential candidate, who has been a leading defender of the troop-surge policy that President Bush has pursued since the beginning of the year. "But governor," said Stephanopoulos, "do you concede that we have seen real progress in bringing down the violence? We do see refugees returning home, and you heard Senator McCain say that we are beginning to see reconciliation at the local level even though they are still in transition at the federal level." "Violence ... ebbs and flows, George," answered Richardson. "I believe that no American death is worthy of saying body counts have gone down. Forty died in October. Sixty-five percent of the Iraqi people in a recent poll say it is okay to shoot at an American soldier. "Until we withdraw all our forces, the political reconciliation that we all want -- a multinational peacekeeping force, a donor conference, the three groups in Iraq, the Sunni, the Shia, and the Kurds coming together, a unification of the country -- is not going to happen." Richardson contended that real progress in Iraq is dependent on a U.S. withdrawal from that country. "What I believe, George, is that all of this talk about casualty counts going down, that is wrong," said Richardson. "That is not how you measure progress. You measure progress by: Is there movement toward political compromise? The answer is no. Is there movement towards a division of oil revenues? No. Is there movement toward regional stability, with Iran and Syria perhaps participating in a constructive way? The answer is no. "The best way to achieve a political solution in Iraq," he said, "is to withdraw our forces."

Look at the conservative media lying and only presenting one view point, Ice! Just look at them! They should be ashamed.

 

[iceaura]

Before I get started, I'd like to thank you for killing another thread with one of your typical tangential rants.

I do tend to respond to your baseless slurs and misrepresentations more than I should. But in my defense, you often pursue matters I have prudently let slide with harassment about my failures to respond. I promise to ignore more of your BS in the future, regardless of your repeated provocations, OK ?

Again, you're essentially charging the man with lying about what he saw and lying about who he talked to.

I'm accusing the man of misrepresenting the context of his "observations", presenting them as something they were not - namely the results of independent investigative journalism - and thereby altering their meaning and implications.

Pollack's entire one week visit to Iraq was stage-managed and supervised as a US military PR operation. He did no independent investigation. He arranged none of the agenda. He chose none of the interview subjects. He did no confidential interviews. He didn't even hire an independent translator. This was concealed from the readers of the article he wrote.

I've seen many people attack that piece, but none of them have claimed what you are claiming and none of them have produced evidence of what you are claiming.

You claimed to have read the half dozen links I found for your lazy ass last time. You didn't ?

Of course, you have to have some idea of what I am claiming, to notice it elsewhere and recognize evidence for it. I do see a problem, there.

And the Times, so far as I know, has not corrected anything the article claimed because of shoddy reporting.

No. And yet you persist in missing the implications of that - the Times, to you, although respectable, is some kind of leftwing liberal news organ missing no opportunities to denigrate the Bush administration. The fact that the Times publishes rank government propaganda on both its editorial and news pages is apparently some kind of kooky conspiracy claim - even with an example right in front of your eyes.

That's been discussed in detail in numerous stories, many of them that are positive about the military progress. I've made no positive claims about the political process here. None. Nobody has.

C'mon. You aren't serious. Every second surge article talks about the reconciliation of the Sunni tribal chiefs with the US and their new spirit of cooperation with the Iraqi central government, just for starters. Pollack alluded to it - among his "observations".

My paper ran a story today about our Republican Senator's recent trip to Iraq. Even he has harsh words about the political situation. So it is getting reported

But it is not getting reported as a failure of the surge, as a sign that the surge is failing, as an element in the evaluation of the drop in violence and its relevance to the surge, as evidence that the surge is not working and the drop in violence may not be significant, as waht we are talking about here - - Christ almighty, hello in there ?

Look at the conservative media lying and only presenting one view point, Ice! Just look at them!

Uh, count, Richardson is not a media figure, the media figure involved was not exactly helping, and there was no claim by me that the media "only presented one viewpoint" in the first place, and so forth. I mean, WTF ?

 

[countezero]

I do tend to respond to your baseless slurs and misrepresentations more than I should.

Slurs and misrepresentations? Sure. Whatever. I've posted, what? Half a dozen or a dozen links in this thread to material with verifiable facts. You've posted what you always post: Your opinion. No offense, but I'll go with the facts.

And you can ignore me if you like. Believe me, that sentiment is mutual. The problem is you love showing up in a thread, seizing on something that outrages you and then the thread spirals out of control with your accusations and claims and my responses to them. Sometimes it's fun. Mostly, it's boring. I see, for example, you're ranting about the Times again. Isn't that getting old, Ice?

I'm accusing the man of misrepresenting the context of his "observations", presenting them as something they were not - namely the results of independent investigative journalism - and thereby altering their meaning and implications.

It was an Op-Ed. He's under no obligation to do anything beyond presenting his observations and opinion, so again, I fail to see what you're complaining about. He wrote about what he saw. The manner in which he saw it is not important.

Previously, you've written about his itinerary and methods, yet you've not demonstrated how you have any knowledge of either. Beyond mentioning that, I won't press that point. That's not really important. In fact, for the sake of argument, I'll grant the whole thing was a tour, of sorts. The problem is you've also written: "He misled his readers about ... what people said to him," which is a serious charge, in that it implies he intentionally misquote people. You need to produce evidence of that. EVIDENCE. So far, you've been unable to.

You're larger problem is that the sort of positive things Pollack talked about have since been reported by dozens of other news agencies who are work outside official channels as much as possible and endeavor to report as accurately and objectively as possible. The fact they seem to match up with some of Pollacks remarks is called corroboration, a word I'm sure you're more than familiar with, even if you seem unable to apply it to your opinions and conclusions.

Of course, you have to have some idea of what I am claiming, to notice it elsewhere and recognize evidence for it. I do see a problem, there.

I don't remember if I read all your links.

But typically, your links aren't worth the bandwidth (The Quarterly and such). I do know I read plenty of pieces attacking Pollack, but none of them accused him of distorting quotes, as you have.

And yet you persist in missing the implications of that - the Times, to you, although respectable, is some kind of leftwing liberal news organ missing no opportunities to denigrate the Bush administration.The fact that the Times publishes rank government propaganda on both its editorial and news pages is apparently some kind of kooky conspiracy claim - even with an example right in front of your eyes.

I do, largely because I am connected to reality and actually READ the Times. Seriously, do you even look at it? The editorial page doesn't miss many opportunities to denigrate the Bush administration. Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Paul Krugman seem to be employed just for that purpose (Steve Cobert recently joked about this in the Dowd column he "took over"). Seriously. Google their names. Read their work. It's pretty obvious. How anyone can read the paper and that page and not see that they hate Bush and constantly attack him is beyond me, but then again, I've ceased to be amazed by your ignorance of reality. You act as though one column, and let's just assume it is propaganda for the moment, is enough to outweigh everything else in the Times. Heck, if you remember correctly, I pointed out to you that two or three days after Pollack's work originally appeared, Frank Rich absolutely hammered the man and the column. What more do you want?

C'mon. You aren't serious. Every second surge article talks about the reconciliation of the Sunni tribal chiefs with the US and their new spirit of cooperation with the Iraqi central government, just for starters. Pollack alluded to it - among his "observations".

I am. The stories also talk about all the other issues I've raised. Read my links. You will see this. Nearly all of them qualify the gains with talk of what is undone...

But it is not getting reported as a failure of the surge, as a sign that the surge is failing, as an element in the evaluation of the drop in violence and its relevance to the surge, as evidence that the surge is not working and the drop in violence may not be significant, as waht we are talking about here - - Christ almighty, hello in there ?

Yes, I'm here. The surge is being evaluated in purely military terms. I think you need to accept the possibility that it's been successful in those terms, which is why the contrary isn't being reported. However, much remains to be done in Iraq, and the failure on other fronts is being reported and talked about, even if most of the Media has become distracted by the vacuous presidential campaign.

Uh, count, Richardson is not a media figure, the media figure involved was not exactly helping, and there was no claim by me that the media "only presented one viewpoint" in the first place, and so forth. I mean, WTF ?

No, he's not. But the important point is you challenged me for proof that a contrary viewpoint is getting reported on television (as I originally claimed) and I've given you some. You said "others" are absent from the Media. He clearly is with the "others" camp. And this is a pattern in our conversations. I back things up with data. You obfuscate and offer more opinion. Richardson is not a media figure, fine. OK. But there are plenty of media figures who appear in similar fashion and say similar things. Must I dredge one up to confirm this point? Is it really worth arguing about?

 

[iceaura]

He wrote about what he saw. The manner in which he saw it is not important.

He also wrote - and was promoted, effusively - about the the manner in which he saw it, which was absolutely crucial and fundamental to his presentation and the meaning of what he saw. And it was false.

I do know I read plenty of pieces attacking Pollack, but none of them accused him of distorting quotes, as you have.
- - -
The problem is you've also written: "He misled his readers about ... what people said to him," which is a serious charge, in that it implies he intentionally misquote people.The problem is you've also written: "He misled his readers about ... what people said to him," which is a serious charge, in that it implies he intentionally misquote people.
- -
No, he's not. But the important point is you challenged me for proof that a contrary viewpoint is getting reported on television (as I originally claimed) and I've given you some.

I did none of those things. You invented.

And this is a pattern in our conversations.

Yes.

You act as though one column, and let's just assume it is propaganda for the moment, is enough to outweigh everything else in the Times.

It's a lot more than one column, as I have clearly stated repeatedly here and elsewhere, and as you well know. The presence of Dowd and Krugman does not make the presence of people like Miller and Broder and Friedman and Pollack evaporate.

The NYT has been printing government propaganda, without journalistic integrity or news value, in both their news and editorial sections, regularly for years now. If they are also printing other stuff that is of course to their credit.

The surge is being evaluated in purely military terms.

That would be bait and switch, then, when these purely military evaluations are used to draw political conclusions - say, about the political benefits of remaining in the country - or hailed as pointing to a turnaround in the general situation.

 

[countezero]

He also wrote - and was promoted, effusively - about the the manner in which he saw it, which was absolutely crucial and fundamental to his presentation and the meaning of what he saw. And it was false.

I don't know about any of that. I know only about what I read in the column, and thus far, you've presented nothing other than your opinion to refute or undermine any of his anecdotal observations. So again, I'll stick with the guy with credentials who has been there and whose observations have been born out later by objective news accounts.

I did none of those things. You invented.

Wow. We have enough to argue about without you denying what you said. I quoted you Ice. You said: "He misled his readers about ... what people said to him." This is a serious charge, in that it implies he intentionally misquoted people. You made that charge, buddy. Not me.

You also wrote this: "Well, you said you see that stuff (IE - contrary opinions on what is happening Iraq and what it means) on TV, 'usually', in major media news. Should I believe you? I never run into anyone else who 'usually" sees stuff like that on TV news."

So I gave you this: "Progress shouldn't be measured by casualty counts, body counts," Richardson told host George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week." Stephanopoulos pressed Richardson on the issue, confronting him with points made earlier in the program by Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a Republican presidential candidate, who has been a leading defender of the troop-surge policy that President Bush has pursued since the beginning of the year. "But governor," said Stephanopoulos, "do you concede that we have seen real progress in bringing down the violence? We do see refugees returning home, and you heard Senator McCain say that we are beginning to see reconciliation at the local level even though they are still in transition at the federal level." "Violence ... ebbs and flows, George," answered Richardson. "I believe that no American death is worthy of saying body counts have gone down. Forty died in October. Sixty-five percent of the Iraqi people in a recent poll say it is okay to shoot at an American soldier. "Until we withdraw all our forces, the political reconciliation that we all want -- a multinational peacekeeping force, a donor conference, the three groups in Iraq, the Sunni, the Shia, and the Kurds coming together, a unification of the country -- is not going to happen." Richardson contended that real progress in Iraq is dependent on a U.S. withdrawal from that country. "What I believe, George, is that all of this talk about casualty counts going down, that is wrong," said Richardson. "That is not how you measure progress. You measure progress by: Is there movement toward political compromise? The answer is no. Is there movement towards a division of oil revenues? No. Is there movement toward regional stability, with Iran and Syria perhaps participating in a constructive way? The answer is no. "The best way to achieve a political solution in Iraq," he said, "is to withdraw our forces."

ABC, in case you don't know, is a major television station with a major news network.

It's a lot more than one column, as I have clearly stated repeatedly here and elsewhere, and as you well know. The presence of Dowd and Krugman does not make the presence of people like Miller and Broder and Friedman and Pollack evaporate.

Um. Let me "break" some news to you: Judith Miller was fired, Thomas Friedman most definitely does not sing the praises of the Bush's and Pollack does not work for the Times: He wrote ONE column. Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd have written entire books trashing the administration, so forgive me if I think the balance is tipped slightly against your rather bland argument of numbers. Broder I will have to check on, but I don't think he works there any more, either. So once again, what you come up with lacks substance and is less than convincing.

The NYT has been printing government propaganda, without journalistic integrity or news value, in both their news and editorial sections, regularly for years now. If they are also printing other stuff that is of course to their credit.

That's a great opinion. Too bad it's hard to take seriously, as you apparently don't even know who works at the paper or what they write. I still can't help but chuckle that you think the Times prints administration propaganda. If the Bushies heard that, they would chuckle, too.

That would be bait and switch, then, when these purely military evaluations are used to draw political conclusions - say, about the political benefits of remaining in the country - or hailed as pointing to a turnaround in the general situation.

Whatever. I'm not the one writing the stories, so I'm not certain why I need to sit here and defend them. Heck, based on our conversation, I don't think you've even read them. And even if you have, there's nothing to stop you from absorbing them and then jumping up like an angry pre-Teen and shouting "Propaganda, propaganda!" So in other words, I'm not sure this conversation is worth pursuing any longer. Impressive as it is, you're intellect is not very malleable.

 

[iceaura]

I don't know about any of that. I know only about what I read in the column

And what you read in all those links I found for you, detailing Pollack's intinerary and methods among other info.

This is a serious charge, in that it implies he intentionally misquoted people. You made that charge, buddy. Not me

I made no charge of misquoting. The charge I made does not at all imply that he intentionally misquoted people. You invented that, based on nothing but your own fantasy of what I am supposed to be believing and saying.

To avoid making such simpleminded errors and stupid misreadings in the future, try not using your own paraphrases of what I post as the basis for your arguments and objections. You are incapable of paraphrasing accurately, for some reason, and the resulting bizarre tangents are a waste of time.

Um. Let me "break" some news to you: Judith Miller was fired, Thomas Friedman most definitely does not sing the praises of the Bush's and Pollack does not work for the Times:

Miller was not fired until after she had used the front page of the NYT for multiple presentations of propaganda from the Office of Special Plans, backed with the imprimatur of the NYT. She was probably a CIA plant. It was not the editors at the NYT who discovered her, despite the flagrancy of her articles, but outsiders - she was fired in embarrassment from publicity. Her associates on the articles - who escaped the publicity - still work for the NYT, in the news rooms. Friedman has been handing out the administration line regularly since before the war, and is even now passing the disaster off on "incompetence" and mistakes - one of the spin lines. Pollack is just one of many guest writers over the years, some decent, some propagandists. His article was run as presented, false claims and all, which the simplest of fact checking would have caught. And so forth.

You also wrote this: "Well, you said you see that stuff (IE - contrary opinions on what is happening Iraq and what it means) on TV, 'usually', in major media news. Should I believe you? I never run into anyone else who 'usually" sees stuff like that on TV news."

So I gave you this:

Something basically irrelevant. A one shot interview of a politician with an apparently at least semi-hostile interviewer - not even a news program, per se. Typical, to borrow a word. We now return you to our regular programming - - -

I still can't help but chuckle that you think the Times prints administration propaganda.

Obliviousness, thy name is agenda. And legion.

Impressive as it is, you're intellect is not very malleable.

Try argument and evidence, based on comprehension. It's worked for others.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

iceaura

Try argument and evidence, based on comprehension. It's worked for others.

Advice that you should take to heart, you really need to work on the comprehension.

 

[countezero]

I made no charge of misquoting. The charge I made does not at all imply that he intentionally misquoted people. You invented that, based on nothing but your own fantasy of what I am supposed to be believing and saying.

Here's your remark, unedited: "He misled his readers about the context of what he saw and what people said to him. That misrepresents the meaning of what he saw and what they said. It's a form of lying, in a journalist."

So you said he engaged in a form of "lying" by misrepresenting his anecdotal observations. You're speaking about context. Taking quotes out of context or using quotes in contexts that aren't accurate, which are your claims about his work, are forms of misquoting.

Miller was not fired until after she had used the front page of the NYT for multiple presentations of propaganda from the Office of Special Plans, backed with the imprimatur of the NYT. She was probably a CIA plant. It was not the editors at the NYT who discovered her, despite the flagrancy of her articles, but outsiders - she was fired in embarrassment from publicity.

And one reporter does not prove your theory. If it did, I could use similar shaky logic to assume the Times fabricates details of major news stories just because Jason Blair used to work there. See how silly that is?

Friedman has been handing out the administration line regularly since before the war, and is even now passing the disaster off on "incompetence" and mistakes - one of the spin lines.

Maybe you ought to read Friedman? I think he's spent the last year or so ranting about "going green" and energy issues (in preparation for another book). In doing so, he's done little but heap scorn on Bush — and the other powers that be — for leaving on lamps and flusing the toilet too many times, etc.

Pollack is just one of many guest writers over the years, some decent, some propagandists. His article was run as presented, false claims and all, which the simplest of fact checking would have caught. And so forth.

You can't fact-check anecdotes. They are anecdotal. The Times typically runs pieces like Pollack's because they are controversial and provide counterbalance to the editorials that surround them. Anyone who reads the Times can see this. You cannot. As I have said several times now, Frank Rich mangled Pollack not two or three days after the Pollack story appeared. Thus, the column was answered by a column. And then there's the fact that the rest of the majority of the paper's editorials are extremely critical of the war and the administration.

Something basically irrelevant.

Why? Because it turns your assertion on its head? You asked for proof, I gave you proof...

A one shot interview of a politician with an apparently at least semi-hostile interviewer - not even a news program, per se.

I gave you one interview because you asked for a proof. If you like, I can find more, and then we can do away with this one-shot business (which intentionally ignores the two newspaper features I also specifically mentioned). But really, what's the point? I could give you dozens of examples of anti-surge opinions in the Media (I caught one last night on O'Reilly by mistake) and you wouldn't alter your opinion to reflect that reality, because you've never altered your opinion on anything since I've encountered you. And then we have this: ABC's "This Week" isn't a news show? Are you really arguing that?

Try argument and evidence, based on comprehension. It's worked for others.

Try an argument based on reason and proof, not opinion. You've done nothing in this thread other than bless us with your rantings and your kooky appreciations of events. Most of them, as I have shown, are not based on reality, or are based on distorted understanding of it. I can't help that...

 

[iceaura]

I gave you one interview because you asked for a proof.

I never asked for a proof, and the one interview was evidence of nothing I was talking about.

So you said he engaged in a form of "lying" by misrepresenting his anecdotal observations. You're speaking about context. Taking quotes out of context or using quotes in contexts that aren't accurate, which are your claims about his work, are forms of misquoting.

He invented a false context for the quotes. That is not the same as misquoting.

Whether he actually misquoted or not is unknown. Pollack himself does not know - he relied throughout on US military supplied interpreters, who were translating staged interviews in the presence of their US military supervision.

And one reporter does not prove your theory.

Actually, it does - if the reporter is frequently or very prominently published, as Miller (for one) was. And Pollack. And Friedman. And Miller's associates, unfired. And Brooks. And Broder. And so forth.

You apparently don't know what my "theory" is. I restate: all major news media in the US - including the NYT - have been publishing and delivering administration propaganda about the Iraq war. No independent journalism free of military and administration influence and management has yet been done by major US news organizations in Iraq.

Maybe you have been talking to yourself in the same paraphrases you post ? these are not representations of any "theories" of mine.

Maybe you ought to read Friedman? I think he's spent the last year or so ranting about "going green" and energy issues (in preparation for another book). In doing so, he's done little but heap scorn on Bush

So? He's so well known for pushing the administration line on Iraq there is a propaganda "unit" named for him in anti-war circles: the Friedman Unit, equal to about six months of a certain kind of waiting. You can Google it.

You can't fact-check anecdotes. They are anecdotal.

You can fact check factual contextual claims, such as a reporter's claiming to have obtained their anecdotes during on-the-ground investigation in Iraq, or a reporter's claiming to have been a harsh critic of the Iraq war efforts and a published doubter about the "surge", and so forth.

Recall: When the anecdotes from that one "soldier" so widely disseminated in the press as critical of the war were found to have been dishonest, they were determined so by debunking the claimed factual context. There was a thread here about that. The publishers of those BS anecdotes were roundly condemned - by you, among others, IIRC - for gullibility and failure of due diligence. And although more flagrant, that situation was much harder to fact check than Pollack's.

So what is the excuse, for this latest ballyhoo about the good news of the violence being down since the surge? Is it simply that after five years of craven retailing of nonsense as news, it's too hard to do a 180 on one event? Or is it that the fiveyear backtracking involved in providing context for this latest good news has become too difficult to sell in sound bites?

 

[countezero]

This no longer interests me. You're not even reading what I'm writing and responding to it. You can't even acknowledge asking for evidence after the evidence has been given to you. You would rather obfuscate and restate your talking points time and time again. I have better things to do than listen to nonsensical rants.

 

[Hani]

I'm still watching that curve and it is still going down. I saw today a new news report about violence going steeply down in the Death Triangle.

It has been just as simple as we believed all along, things got that bad only because of poor planing and of too few troops. That's all. The primary idea itself was great.

 

[hypewaders]

Hani: "I'm still watching that curve and it is still going down."

Stay targeted, warheads. Be Smart; Remember; Focus.

"It has been just as simple as we believed all along, things got that bad only because of poor planing and of too few troops. That's all."

SurgeOn, General- Surge Our Troops, Urge Surge, Over there... Over there... Re-re-re-re-deploy our troops til it's over over there.

"The primary idea itself was great."

Yes, colonialism indeed had its day, or centuries now past. But that was then, and this is now. That scheme doesn't work anymore. No Perma-Surge, real or imaginary, is going to rescue the bankrupt American mandate in Iraq. That's not pessimism, but realism. This latest self-congratulation will pass into the same ironic ignonimity as Dubya's Mission-Accomplished carrier-deck strut. Even within the Potemkin Villages of Iraq, militias are gearing up for the next round of ethnic cleansing. And throughout the region, antipathy towards the USA is heating up toward the next destabilizing boil-over. Then the mysteriously-wired Death-O-Meter that is so selectively commented on will sadly spike again.

Just stay tuned, and learn the hard truth: Operation Iraqi Liberation isn't working; never worked; is unworkable because the USA can never impress or frighten the people of the region enough to set the agenda in Iraq, or beyond the borders of America's glorious new bed-shitting and brain-dead protectorate. Sooner or later, we'll have to pull the plug.

 

[iceaura]

I'm still watching that curve and it is still going down.

So who's winning:

The death squads and ethnic cleansers

The wall builders and ghetto creators

The Iranians and proxy Shia

The Saudis and proxy Sunni

The US and proxy "allies"

The Kurdish separatists preparing for war with whomever.

The Sunni preparing for war with the Shia

The Israelis who want the US to stay and tie up Iran.

The jihadists who want the war to keep going as is and bleed all their enemies, financially and politically.

None of the above: the curve is going to go back up, and possibly force the US out.

Other _ __ __

 

[Hani]

Hypewaders, I guess all we can do is to wait and see. To be honest with you, the only thing that I'm afraid of now is Iran (your ally, you know what I mean). I think Iran is the only force that is capable of messing Iraq up now, or that is potentially willing to do so.


Iceaura,

The death squads and ethnic cleansers those are being contained, they have been significantly contained

The wall builders and ghetto creators I'm seeing reports everyday on TV about Sunnis and Shias returning to their mixed neighborhoods again and about their fraternal relationships, etc... Regular Sunnis are so against terrorists but you people have created a myth and believed it.

The Iranians and proxy Shia those are the real time bomb.

The Saudis and proxy Sunni Give me a break. This is certainly one of the stupidests myths that Americans have created. You don't know anything about the histroy of this region; Saudis are fierce and natural enemies of both Ba'thists and al-qaida, which are the only two Sunni armed groups!

The US and proxy "allies" Those are certainly winning

The Kurdish separatists preparing for war with whomever. Those are harmless, they are not a real threat to anything

The Sunni preparing for war with the Shia I think those are the same people who were mentioned first!

The Israelis who want the US to stay and tie up Iran. What does that have to do with our issue here?!

The jihadists who want the war to keep going as is and bleed all their enemies, financially and politically. Those certainly aren't winning because most of the ass kicking that is going on now is directed to theirs.

None of the above: the curve is going to go back up, and possibly force the US out. Let's wait and see.

 

[hypewaders]

Hani "the only thing that I'm afraid of now is Iran (your ally, you know what I mean)."

No, I don't. Please explain exactly what you mean.

"...Iran is the only force that is capable of messing Iraq up now, or that is potentially willing to do so."

News Flash: Iraq Messed Up, Already- Iran Didn't Do It

 

[pjdude1219]

i have said it before and i will say again it is irrelevent if the surge is working because it is not sustainable therefore not a long term solution to the violence.