Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcsluggo
I hope this person is correct... but that graph is one of the biggest pieces of statisitical butchering I have ever seen. Look at the trend line... it is pushed down towards zero based on ONE data point (Sep 07) and that month isn't even over yet. Just usuing the data from the graph, LAST month was the 4th most violent for civilians in Iraq.
As I said, I hope he is correct in his assessment, but it is bullshit over optimistic "projections" (and I use the term generously) like this that have arguably caused the most problems for the administration to this point. Overpromising is a real problem, and their supporters don't do them any favors by duplicating the mistake.
The text of the quote is another example. Why does it have to be so over stated? Nobody believes that Anbar is EVERYTHING for al-Quada. If he had pointed out that the US military directly confronted Al Qada there, and has had great success, that WOULD be/IS something to trumpet... but instead he makes bullshit statements that hint that this was the END of Al Quada. CLearly this is NOT the case, and now al Queda only needs one SMALL success somewhere else to turn that statement into another stupid over promise. Why why why? This is how military successes can STILL be transformed into tactical losses, it is the Tet offensive all over again.
|
The raw numbers are what's most interesting, you are taking way too much from the trend. I would expect he just took a flat excel spreadsheet linear regression for that. It's unfortunate that you can't look past that to the raw numbers.
With respect to the quote you'd have to read totten's interview with the soldier who gave it and determine if it's over the top or not. If you do read the interview I think you'll find that the guy is pretty deliberate (at least that what totten's describes) when he makes comments. Also he's pretty guarded about what will happen in baghdad.
The reason engram notes it is because he's been wondering why it's been such a secret who we are fighting and he's harped on it for a long, long time. Quite a bit of analysis imo, to back it up as well.
If you read the blog post his comment on that statement was:
Quote:
|
That's about as succinct a summary of my last 300 blog posts as you'll ever find! All facts support this analysis, and I have cited the relevant evidence many, many times. Those who don't know this are uninformed, yet many have strong opinions about Iraq anyway. That doesn't make sense to me. If you are going to have a strong opinion about Iraq, you should at least know the basics. Most don't, especially those on the left who mistakenly believe that they have witnessed what they long predicted would happen, namely, a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis that erupted in the power vacuum caused by George Bush's foolish decision to remove the strongman who, despite his faults, kept those hostilities in check.
|
I don't like posting entire articles, it mucks it up imo.