Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

FixCam: On Location at Post.com

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 11, 2007; 8:50 AM ET
Categories:  FixCam  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Nebraska Senate Race Shapes Up
Next: Hollywood Players Form Political Production Company

Comments

zbqtce mhjcq ahrj ltpfac wdytsijv wvgyboudn pyxwozhv http://www.frskltu.zgdvw.com

Posted by: tkxardz zsda | October 2, 2007 12:08 AM | Report abuse

gdzpqny hxnqteful gbperf ikhebtfo rzfolaywv acepv ldcu

Posted by: drmijbtx ylsmgkid | October 2, 2007 12:08 AM | Report abuse

gdzpqny hxnqteful gbperf ikhebtfo rzfolaywv acepv ldcu

Posted by: drmijbtx ylsmgkid | October 2, 2007 12:07 AM | Report abuse

JimD: I see your point but the way I read it he expects them to claim victory. I hardly think any D will pay attention to Will any more than they would Friedman who makes similar policy recommendations. In essence, he expects them to take the low road. I find this more than a little annoying.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 11, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Judge,

Will has been critical of the Iraq mess for quite some time. He is recommending that the Democrats claim victory, not reporting that they will.

drindl,

Military officers have an obligation to refuse to obey an illegal order. We hanged a number of Nazis for obeying illegal orders. A legal but stupid order is a different matter. The officers would have to resign, there is really no other choice. Joe Klein in Time reported in the spring that the Chiefs were adamantly opposed to an attack on Iran. The blogosphere contains a lot of speculation that General Pace, outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was fired because of his opposition to an attack on Iran.

Posted by: JimD in FL | September 11, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

While it's always nice to see Will somewhat in touch with reality I'm not sure where he finds the logic for this statement:

"To declare this a substantial victory won by them requires Democrats to do two things. They must make a mountain out of a molehill (Petraeus suggests withdrawal of only a few thousand troops). And they must spuriously claim credit for the mountain. Actually, senior military officers have been saying that a large drawdown is inevitable, given the toll taken on the forces by the tempo of operations for more than four years."

Where is his evidence that the D's are going to make all these claims? What I see is the R's/Bush attempting to say "Hey, the troops are coming home!" based on the simple fact that their tours are ending in a completely preprogrammed way that Bush had nothing to do with.

On the contrary, I'm reading analyses like this:
Anti-War Dems Could Derail Bipartisan Compromise On Iraq http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/10/antiwar-dems-could-derai_n_63864.html

Will has extricated a few scales from his eyes but his judgement remains clouded by the same partisan Kool-Aid that caused the scales to be there in the first place.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 11, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

in re: Dodd/Obama, it's a little disingenuous for Dodd to whine about the Levin/Reed bill, and to claim that because they have not denounced it Obama and Clinton are hypocrites.

Kos says "Rhetoric and highly nuanced statements are not going to end this war -- strong leadership and clarity will." However, the important point here is that with a closely divided Congress, a compromise like Levin/Reed, which still might (will?) face a veto, is the only approach with even a remote chance of passage. Yes, "strong leadership and clarity" could end the war, but unfortunately at this point, the Democrats do not have the numbers to offer either. That is why Dodd, Obama, Clinton et al are running for president... because, as Senators, they can't make happen the policy changes they would like to see.

At the moment, the most effective strategy is, unfortunately, 'rhetoric' and compromise bills that will actually make it to the president's desk. It is perhaps not the most effective ELECTORAL politics, but Dodd is more than a little cynical in his assumption that he can sell it to the electorate as so being. "The question is" NOT "whether Hillary or Barack would vote for a supplemental that does not include such deadlines," but rather whether a vote for a supplemental WITH deadlines - knowing that it had zero chance of being passed, and that the Democrats had insufficient votes to override a veto - wouldn't be a waste of time, cynically roleplaying a life or death issue rather than making what progress is possible.

Posted by: Bokonon | September 11, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Action: The Capitulation Caucus
by BarbinMD
Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:25:23 AM PDT
What is The Capitulation Caucus? That's what we want to know and we need your help.

In the coming days, Congress will once again take up legislation on Iraq. As we see the first indication of fissures in Republican support for George Bush's endless war, now is the time for Democrats to stand firm. Yet one of the first bills the House may be voting on is the Abercrombie/Tanner bill, H.R. 3087. Toothless doesn't even begin to describe it.

(a) Strategy Required- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act , the President, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other senior military leaders, shall develop and transmit to Congress a comprehensive strategy for the redeployment of the Armed Forces in Iraq. [...]

(1) nothing in this Act shall be construed as a recommendation by Congress that any particular contingency plan be exercised;

More than four years into this war, and Congress is planning to vote on a bill to have the Bush administration begin to develop a plan for redeployment? Just a suggestion mind you, nothing more. Not good enough. This bill is a joke that doesn't even deserve to get to the floor for a vote, let alone receive bipartisan support. Because as we all know, these days bipartisan means just a few Democrats joining with the Republicans to continue rubber stamping George Bush's war policies. And so it's time for the community to limber up their dialing fingers and get to work.

Where does your Congressman stand? Check that. Where does every Democratic member of Congress stand? Does he/she plan to vote for H.R. 3087? Will they continue to ignore the vast majority of Democrats who want a timeline for withdrawal now? Below the fold is the name and phone number of every Democratic member of the House of Representatives. The goal here is to find
out, "Yes or no, does Congressman ___ support H.R. 3087?"

Let's find out which Democratic Congressmen are members of the Capitulation Caucus. And when we do, we can pour on the pressure so they remember why they were elected...and to remind them that there's an election just around the corner. If they want to continue getting our time and our money, they need to start doing the job they were elected to do. We are at a point in time where many Republican's blind support of George Bush is beginning to waver, and there is no excuse for a Democratic capitulation. Now is the time to press our advantage, not to engage in a Kumbaya moment of token gestures.

So start making those calls and post the results. Start with your own Representative, and if you have the time, call a few more. And as the results come in, updates will be posted so we all know who are the Democrats and who are the capitulators.

The main switchboard for the House of Representatives: (202) 224-3121
And for those outside of Washington D.C., the toll free number: 1-800-828-0498

And below the fold, the name and phone number of every Democratic Representative, and if you are unsure who your Representative is, information on how to find out.

Poll
Do You Support H.R. 3087?

Yes
9% 38 votes
No
90% 355 votes

| 393 votes | Vote | Results

Permalink :: There's more... (37 comments)
Open Thread
by openthread
Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:53:49 AM PDT
For your open threading pleasure.
Permalink :: There's more... (60 comments)

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

rufus, are you the one posting the whole articles with the 'permalink' tag? i, a ghost poster, am your friend, but those are way too long. please post only a graf or two and a link.. it really lisn't fair to leave such long posts.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

that was me, admiring Will's use of 'incandescent' at 10:25.

Posted by: bsimon | September 11, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Iraqis Say Surge Has Failed
by DemFromCT
Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 02:38:13 PM PDT
In an extraordinary poll (.pdf) jointly run by ABC News, the BBC and the Japanese broadcaster NHK, Iraqis look at the surge results as a failure, a conclusion reached by both English-speaking news organizations. From ABC News' Gary Langer

More Iraqis say security in their local area has gotten worse in the last six months than say it's gotten better, 31 percent to 24 percent, with the rest reporting no change. Far more, six in 10, say security in the country overall has worsened since the surge began, while just one in 10 sees improvement.

More directly assessing the surge itself -- a measure that necessarily includes views of the United States, which are highly negative -- 65 to 70 percent of Iraqis say it's worsened rather than improved security, political stability and the pace of redevelopment alike.

There are some improvements, but they're sparse and inconsistent. Thirty-eight percent in Anbar province, a focal point of the surge, now rate local security positively; none did so six months ago. In Baghdad fewer now describe themselves as feeling completely unsafe in their own neighborhoods -- 58 percent, down from 84 percent. Yet other assessments of security in these locales have not improved, nor has the view nationally.

Overall, 41 percent report security as their greatest personal problem, down seven points from 48 percent in March. But there's been essentially no change in the number who call it the nation's top problem (56 percent, with an additional 28 percent citing political or military issues). And there are other problems aplenty to sour the public's outlook -- lack of jobs, poor power and fuel supply, poor medical services and many more.

More highlights from the detailed polling, and a hat tip to Ben P for these observations:

The number of Iraqis endorsing attacks on US troops has INCREASED since March (ie since the surge has taken effect): 57% as compared to 50% now endorse such attacks (93% of Sunnis, 50% of Shiites, 5% of Kurds). [Note those Sunni numbers!]
The number of Iraqis saying security has WORSENED since the current US troop buildup (this is an answer to a specific question about the "Surge") is 70%. Only 12% think it has improved things in the country.
The number of Iraqis in favor of an IMMEDIATE withdrawal of US troops is now 47%, up from 34% in March
the number of respondents expressing "a great deal of confidence" in Coalition forces is 4%. The number expressing "no confidence at all" in coalition forces is 58% (up from 52% in March). Overall 85% of Iraqis express little or no confidence in coalition forces (up from 82% this March)
53% of Iraqis strongly oppose the presence of coalition forces (the highest number ever, up from March of this year). Only 5% strongly approve their presence. In total 79% disapprove of their presence and 21% approve their presence. This is unchanged from earlier this year.
On "Al Qaeda," 0% of respondents support attacks by AQ on Iraqis, 1% support AQ attempts to "take over communities," but 48% support AQ attacks on Americans.
The Maliki government has an approval rating now of 33% (down from 41% in March)
This is hardly the winning of hearts and minds.

The poll suggests that the overall mood in Iraq is as negative as it has been since the US-led invasion in 2003, says BBC world affairs correspondent Nick Childs.

More BBC graphs can be found here and here (h/t Ott). Iraqis by a wide margin do not feel safer in areas where surge forces were sent. And from the poll .pdf:

Apart from a few scattered gains, a new national survey by ABC News, the BBC and the Japanese broadcaster NHK finds deepening dissatisfaction with conditions in Iraq, lower
ratings for the national government and growing rejection of the U.S. role there. More Iraqis say security in their local area has gotten worse in the last six months than say it's gotten better, 31 percent to 24 percent, with the rest reporting no change. Far more, six in 10, say security in the country overall has worsened since the surge began, while just one in 10 sees improvement.

On what justification is the claim of success by the Bush administration based? Not only has there been no political reconciliation in a situation that has no military solution, the Iraqi people do not feel safer because of the surge.

Indeed, apart from Kurds, support for immediate withdrawal is lowest, and has risen the least, in Baghdad, whose mixed Shiite-Sunni status puts it at particular risk. Desire for the United States to "leave now" is highest in Anbar, still deeply anti-American despite any accommodation its leaders have made with the U.S. military.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and the claims by the Bush administration of success are not backed up by independent reports. What does that tell you? It tells us that the American public is right to not trust the WH to tell the truth about Iraq.

Permalink :: Discuss (129 comments)

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Dodd throws down gauntlet to Obama
by kos
Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 06:55:20 PM PDT
Dodd statement:

While we are glad that Senator Obama has called for a change of course in Iraq, he isn't clear as to what he will do to make that happen, or when.

Rhetoric and highly nuanced statements are not going to end this war -- strong leadership and clarity will. That's why Chris Dodd has said that he cannot support the reported Levin-Reed measure if it does not have a firm and enforceable deadline.

We urge Senator Obama, and all the other candidates in the Senate, to state clearly and directly whether or not they will support Iraq legislation if it does not include a firm, enforceable deadline to begin and complete the redeployment of troops from Iraq.

We know that all the candidates want legislation with a deadline, but the question is whether Hillary or Barack would vote for a supplemental that does not include such deadlines.

It's a damn good question.

Permalink :: Discuss (263 comments)

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 10:28 AM | Report abuse

'coward - can you post all the articles, in their entirety here,'

that's what you do all day here, koz, and everybody knows it, so what is your problem?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 10:28 AM | Report abuse

That Mark, to me is the whole problem with our election system -- the money can come from anywhere -- and does. Even from other countries whose interests are at variance with ours. There's really no way to track it, either. Why is why I think REAL campaign finance reform would go a long way toward cleaning up the muck that infests DC.

I cannot honestly understand the argument that taking the corrupting influence of money out of politics is somehow inhibiting 'free speech.'

Posted by: drndl | September 11, 2007 10:27 AM | Report abuse

10:18, no matter who the Republicans nominate, Massachusetts will probably be their worst state. I don't think anyone expects different from Romney. But it's useful to remind people how unpopular Mitt is among the only people who ever elected him.

Posted by: Blarg | September 11, 2007 10:26 AM | Report abuse

coward - can you post all the articles, in their entirety here, from Kos and all those other loony left sites. I am too lazy to click over there myself.

you are doing this blog a priceless service. none of your fellow travelers would know what to think without your help. Please don't muddy the waters with any original thinking or by creating anything unique. you really don't do that too well. Stick with the korny and juvenile insults.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 11, 2007 10:25 AM | Report abuse

drindl says, of Will,
"the ole gasbag really hit the nail on the head."

Once in a while, Will writes a really good piece. He doesn't have the gift for language that Safire has, but occasionally produces a gem. I like this one:

"The base is incandescent because there are more troops in Iraq today than..."

I'm picturing the Dem base as 'glowing with rage' - incandescent!

He's right though, and Krauthammer also admitted as much recently (in backing partitioning). If the surge is achieving success militarily, but there are not political accomplishments by the Iraqi gov't, we really aren't seeing success as it was defined at the outset of the surge.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Dave S. at 10:07A and | at 10:09A reminded me that in 1996 Archibald Cox made the offhand remark that whoever won the election would be subject to impeachment because Dole had accepted so much illegal Arab money and Clinton so much illegal Chinese money. I dutifully voted for Perot. Clinton was not impeached for accepting Chinese money. Dole was not prosecuted for accepting Arab money.
Perot finished dead last. There were no consequences beside my wasted vote. The Electoral commission, which is bipartisan, simply orders the parties to return illegal
contributions. That is what happened after the '96 election. Why would we think anything has changed?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 11, 2007 10:21 AM | Report abuse

coward, can you post all sorts of stupid things all day under my name and all your aliases? I don't think this site has enough pasted garbage on it.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 11, 2007 10:21 AM | Report abuse

hey zouk -- your mom wake you up early today?

Posted by: xx | September 11, 2007 10:20 AM | Report abuse

A new Rasmussen poll shows Democrats are overwhelmingly favored to pick up the seat of retiring Senator John Warner (R-VA), if they can get former Dem Governor Mark Warner (no relation) to run. Mark Warner beats Congressman Tom Davis by a margin of 57%-30%, and tops former Governor Jim Gilmore by a 54%-34% margin.

Rasmussen also has Virginia looking like a swing state in next year's presidential race, with a definite chance of a Democratic win. Hillary Clinton is beating Rudy Giuliani there 44%-41%, and edges Fred Thompson 46%-44% -- results that are within the margin of error. Dems have not carried Virginia since the Lyndon Johnson landslide of 1964.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Ouch. A new Rasmussen poll shows Mitt Romney losing his home state of Massachusetts, where he served a single four-year term as Governor, by a landslide margin in a general election. Hillary Clinton gets 60% support in the poll, compared to only 34% for Romney. His performance is statistically identical to Southern conservative Fred Thompson, who loses the New England state 58%-33% against Clinton.

Romney has actively run against Massachusetts liberalism, and even ran an ad attacking the state back in May. If the Republicans nominate Romney, could Massachusetts end up being his single worst state?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

The clintons involved in a fundraising scandel? I don't believe a word of it. they are angels. they would never subvert the law to line thehir own pockets, would they?

//Sarcasm off//

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 11, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

chris, Let's put it this way. you have the perfect look for Radio and the right voice for a printed column.

Keep up the good work

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 11, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

'Beyond the conspiracy theorists, this further raises the eyebrows of folks in the middle who wonder if they want to give democrats the national security reins.'

Really? And what about Bush's family ties to the bin Ladin family?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse

The Hsu scandal only matters because it is the Hsu scandal and not the Johnson or Smith scandal. The Clinton-China connection is not something that they want to rehash, particularly given China's current PR problems in the US. Beyond the conspiracy theorists, this further raises the eyebrows of folks in the middle who wonder if they want to give democrats the national security reins.

Posted by: Dave S | September 11, 2007 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin (on another thread)
"bsimon, you have suggested, politically [Rudy & HRC] are not terribly far apart.

Do you still think that?"

Condensed version: I think HRC & Rudy are the closest to each other, of the candidates running now. i.e. Rudy is most leftward in GOP, HRC is most rightward amongst the Dems.

Posted by: bsimon | September 11, 2007 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin: I respect you enough that you got me to read George Will! And, I have to say, the ole gasbag really hit the nail on the head. Quite coherent and rational.

And to you, and JimD, understand I am not smearing Gen. Petreus. I'm sure he is an honorable man in a very difficult position. I do think that he has been overly partisan [like offering an exclusive to Fox and agreeing with Brit Hume that this is 'mainly a war with al-queda'. I think he has allowed himself to be used. But to be fair, I don't know that he has any alternative.

Posted by: drindl | September 11, 2007 10:02 AM | Report abuse

DCAustinite
"there's nothing to stop us now."

Well, there's the lack of manpower problem.

Posted by: bsimon | September 11, 2007 10:01 AM | Report abuse

My 2 cents: the Hsu 'scandal' simply doesn't have legs. Besides, if the GOP candidate "goes there" HRC will hit back a LOT harder given all of the baggage associated with the current GOP slate. It would be trivially easy to generate vicious commercials that suppress the GOP vote without influencing D voters one way or the other. HRC has learned the lesson that Kerry didn't: when Rovian/Atwater tactics are invoked, politics becomes war.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 11, 2007 9:53 AM | Report abuse

"know that some in the administration are pushing for war with Iran but the military leadership is adamantly opposed."

Not to be contrarian, but they were adamantly opposed to invading Iraq, and the only general on Bush's Chief of staff was against it, but that didn't stop them. Also, now that we've broken the cherry of invading a sovereign state to 'pre-empt war', there's nothing to stop us now.

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 11, 2007 9:53 AM | Report abuse

duh, 'corrupting influence OF MONEY in politics'.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Chris, "Thanks for sharing", as they say. Roadie films in NH, IA, and SC would be welcome, by me.

Andy R., I agree with bsimon.

Anonymous cut-and-paster, Petraeus testified thoroughly and well. He was cross-examined on his statistics. Not much point in retelling snippets. As a general, he has done in the field what a general is supposed to do. He is proud of his troops and of their successes.

BUT

George Will, this morning, points again to the actual crux of the disconnect between tactical successes and policy making. He asks what is our mission?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/10/AR2007091002065.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 11, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Is that true, JimD, that the military leadership is opposed to war with Iran? I can sure see why they would be, but not being a military person myself, can I ask you something? What do you do if you are a general and you are ordered by your CIC to do something that you know is clearly dangerous to your country? I understand the obedience and chain of command and so forth, but is there a provision for not obeying an order that you think is insane?

Posted by: drindl | September 11, 2007 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Andy R- another fine example of the corrupting influence in politics! Take that $850K out of the Clinton campaign, and how does her fundraising compare to Obama's? He was already ahead, wasn't he? The Clinton campaign is obviously under (self-imposed?) pressure to prove they are the clear front-runners in the race, how does that impact their decision to return a huge (bundle of) contribution(s)?

Personally I'd rather she weren't in the race anyway, but I'm not rooting for a scandal that forces her out.

Posted by: bsimon | September 11, 2007 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Chris, thanks for thinking outside the box wtih your new video reports. I'm looking forward to them (and as others have said, I hope they don't take the place of the traditional entries, just augment and improve them!)

JD

Posted by: JD | September 11, 2007 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Jim D, not to mention about 80% of the American public.

Posted by: Andy R | September 11, 2007 9:43 AM | Report abuse

war with Iran gearing up

Constructing bases on the border with Iran is also consistent with safeguarding Iraq's territorial integrity and cutting off the supply of weapons to insurgents. I know that some in the administration are pushing for war with Iran but the military leadership is adamantly opposed.

Posted by: JimD in FL | September 11, 2007 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Bsimon,
I read somewhere that as you say nobody in her campaign was involved, but they were warned months ago by the DNC that Hsu was fishy and their Western fundraising manager blew off the warning.

IMO, I think this shows another reason why bundling for all campaigns should be illegal.

Posted by: Andy R | September 11, 2007 9:39 AM | Report abuse

CC, video is just not your format, dude. Do yourself a favor and write instead. I know it's more work but you don't realize how funny you look with a huge arrow across your nose. Trust me, it's not flattering.

Posted by: drindl | September 11, 2007 9:37 AM | Report abuse

WSJ: "The Pentagon is preparing to build its first base for U.S. forces near the Iraqi-Iranian border. The push also includes construction of fortified checkpoints on the major highways leading from the Iranian border to Baghdad and the installation of X-ray machines and explosives-detecting sensors at the only formal border crossing between Iran and Iraq. The measures come as the U.S. high command in Iraq has begun to recalibrate the overall American mission in the country to focus less on the Sunni Muslim radicals who were long the primary U.S. targets of pacifying the country and more on the Shiite Muslim militias."

'of X-ray machines and explosives-detecting sensors' too bad we can't afford those here at home...

Posted by: war with Iran gearing up | September 11, 2007 9:29 AM | Report abuse

On topic, I find the video-free Fix preferable.

Posted by: bsimon | September 11, 2007 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Andy R asks
"How do you think the Hsu fundraising scandal will effect Hillary Clinton in the long-run now that her campaign has given back 850,000 bucks that he bundled for her campaign?"

Depends. Some opponents, more the GOP than her Dem competition, will likely try to smear her with Hsu's misdeeds implying the Senator is corrupt, or ethically challenged. The evidence does not yet support such allegations though. By pre-emptively returning all the contributions he bundled, they've done about all they can to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Based on the Sunday NYT article, it sure appears as though Hsu was funneling money to others that they would then contribute to the Senator's campaign. They didn't report anything that ties anyone in the Clinton campaign to the scheme - if something like that comes out, she could be in deep yogurt, as they say.

Posted by: bsimon | September 11, 2007 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Of course, the rampant criminality in Iraq is as much a threat to stability as the sectarian violence.

Posted by: JimD in FL | September 11, 2007 9:27 AM | Report abuse

That chart the anonymous 9:08 AM poster linked to is misleading. It attributes casualty numbers to Petraeus long before he took command of US forces in Iraq. Furthermore, if you look at the 2007 comparisons, Petraeus' numbers are higher than IBC's in 4 of the 6 months for which both estimates are listed.

Posted by: JimD in FL | September 11, 2007 9:23 AM | Report abuse

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

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

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 9:11 AM | Report abuse

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/idc-combined/

The real numbers of Iraqi civilian dead, compliled by Iraq Body Count, an impartial international organization dedicated, since the beginning of the war, to keeping an accurate record of the conflict.

These are compared to Petraues' numbers, which were complied in a highly misleading and partisan manner [for insance, if a body is found with a bullet hole in the back rather than front, it is not counted as sectarian violence].

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 9:08 AM | Report abuse

CC, what is the point of this video? You could be filming from Antarctica for all I care.
And you still need to put a write up of your video on line too so that those of us at work can get into the conversation.

Since Chris doesn't want to talk about Politics today I will throw a topic out there.
How do you think the Hsu fundraising scandal will effect Hillary Clinton in the long-run now that her campaign has given back 850,000 bucks that he bundled for her campaign? Talk amongst yourselves...

Posted by: Andy R | September 11, 2007 8:58 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company