THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Improvement in Iraq: Trust Joe Klein and his secret sources?
Improvement in Iraq: Trust Joe Klein and his secret sources
by Glenn Greenwald - Salon
5/24/07

One great myth in our current political discourse is that, come September, there will be a real day of reckoning in Iraq for the Bush administration.
Glenn Greenwald

May. 24, 2007 | Q. If you're a Bush administration official and you want to create a prominent headline in Time Magazine proclaiming what great improvement there is in Iraq, what do you do?

A. Have someone with a shiny military uniform go and flatter Joe Klein by whispering "secrets" in his ear all while demanding anonymity, and then he'll dutifully run to the pages of Time and mindlessly repeat what he's been told as though he has discovered some great journalistic scoop, which is how Time will treat it.

Klein's article -- entitled "Is al-Qaida on the Run in Iraq"? -- is, according to Time's site, the single most popular article in that magazine. And, predictably enough, it is being hailed by every standard war proponent.

Is there a single principle of good journalism which Klein, in his short piece, failed to violate? The first sentence declares that "there is good news from Iraq, believe it or not," and that is all based on the claim that "the level of violence [in Anbar] has plummeted in recent weeks." And how does Klein know that?

A senior U.S. military official told me -- confirming reports from several other sources -- that there have been "a couple of days recently during which there were zero effective attacks and less than 10 attacks overall in the province (keep in mind that an attack can be as little as one round fired). This is a result of sheiks stepping up and opposing AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] and volunteering their young men to serve in the police and army units there."

As always, the very idea of granting anonymity to government sources to do nothing other than repeat pro-government claims is both manipulative and moronic on its face. What possible journalistic value could there ever be in cloaking someone with anonymity in order to say something that Tony Snow would happily say, and does say, every day from the White House Press Briefing Room?

That was one of the principal though-still-unlearned lessons of the Judy Miller Saga: when a journalist does nothing but mindlessly repeat the claims of government sources which are completely consistent with -- or designed to bolster -- the claims being made by the administration itself out in the open, the journalist is doing nothing more than turning himself into a willing propaganda tool. Again, what conceivable journalistic justification is there for granting anonymity to government sources to recite the Government Line? It has no value other than to lend the government position enhanced though unmerited credibility ("It isn't just Bush saying things are getting better in Iraq; Time has a leaking, brave anonymous source who also says that, so it must be true").

And then there is Klein's assurance that what his special military friend told him is consistent with what was said by "several other sources." There is, of course, no need to provide any information about these "several other" corroborating sources -- government? military? those invested in the pro-war position? AEI "war scholars"? -- because Klein knows who they are and thinks they're credible and you can and should just trust his judgment.

Hence we have a major headline in Time declaring how great things are in Iraq -- "Al Qaeda on the run" -- all based on what an unnamed military official secretly told Klein, as well as the same statements from a few unnamed individuals about whom we know exactly nothing. These are followed by the standard "still-serious-problems-in-Iraq" caveat which, I have no doubt in Klein's mind, demonstrates balance. And all of this is to say nothing about the endlessly exploited and indescribably irrational practice of interpreting some short-term and isolated lull in violence as Real Progress. How many more years do we have to endure that tactic to justify our ongoing occupation?

That Klein and Time continue to churn out shoddy, gullible "journalism" is hardly news. But what is notable here is that this is a mere glimpse of the Beltway script that will be clung to over the next few months -- until the arrival of Glorious September.

The single greatest and most transparent delusion in our public discourse right now -- and that is a distinction for which there is always an intense competition -- is that Something Weighty and Significant is Going to Happen In September with regard to the Iraq War.

September, you see, is the real turning point, the real Day of Reckoning. Finally, our political elites are going to face the cold, hard truth in an unvarnished and hard-nosed way about The Facts on the Ground. That is the read deadline for George W. Bush. No more leniency for him come September. Republicans, Democrats and their pundit and opinion-making comrades alike have all banded together -- strength in numbers -- and boldly decreed: "No More." Either we have Real Progress in September, or that is the end of the line.

That's what one hears over and over from all of our Serious and Sober Beltway denizens -- the ones who advocated the war in the first place and assured us it was going well for the last four years (and therefore have great credibility on such matters). As but just one example, the very serious, sober, smart expert Michael O'Hanlon, bearing the title of Senior Fellow of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, was on Fox News yesterday explaining how "smart" the Democrats were for funding the war with no limits because their real opportunity is September, when -- if things are not going well -- everyone will support them in imposing real limits.

But all that is going to happen In September is that we are going to await with bated breath for General David Petraeus -- he of infallible wisdom, judgment and honesty, and unquestionable objectivity -- to descend upon Washington and reveal whether there is Real Progress being made (by him) in Iraq. We are all going to leave partisanship and politics to the side and turn to the source who resides above all of that, the one who can be counted on to speak the Real Truth -- General David Petraeus.

And, needless to say, General Petraeus will, cautiously though emphatically, declare that progress is being made, though there is much work that remains to be done. And therefore we must redouble our resolve and stay until The Job is Done.

Do Generals ever say that they are failing in their mission and that their wars have become hopeless? Petraeus himself has repeatedly said that his Surge Strategy will require far more than a few months to succeed. By its very terms, it cannot have failed by September. He has already come to Washington and declared improvements, and his senior military officials are sending their pets, such as Joe Klein, to Time with exciting new reports about Al-Qeada being on the run. That is but a preview of the dramatic and electrifying film to be released in September.

And with General Petraeus heralded as the Objective Source of Honor to be Trusted, the White House and Congressional Republicans and Fred Hiatt will immediately proclaim that it would be irresponsible and reckless (and terribly unserious) not to continue with our Great Progress, that we should leave such judgments to the Generals on the Ground, not Politicians in Washington. Joe Lieberman and Bill Kristol will warn that anyone who speaks out in dissent at this Important Time of Opportunity is Emboldening Al Qaeda, and General Petraeus will agree.

And in September, when the great (though incomplete) progress is unveiled by General Petraeus, our pundit class will continue their canonization of The General, and thus, that there is Progress in Iraq will be the conventional wisdom which all serious and responsible people recognize ("Finally, after four years of frustration, General David Petraeus, in dramatic testimony before Congress, highlighted the great improvement the U.S. is seeing in its war against Al Qaeda in Iraq"). And a sufficient number of Democrats will either be persuaded by this ritual or will be sufficiently afraid of it to do anything other than let the entire spectacle continue.

The central unyielding truth in our political landscape is that -- no matter what -- the War in Iraq is not going to end before the end of the Bush presidency. That has been obvious for a very long time, and that is why it is so bizarre to watch the Beltway establishment continue to pretend that there is some Big Decision Day coming in September -- the day when Republicans take a stand and our political elite put their foot down.

Nothing has changed. Republicans and media-war-proponents are far too invested in the war to do anything other than claim it is finally going well. And there are more than enough Democrats who either (a) believe we should stay in Iraq indefinitely, (b) perceive political benefits from staying, and/or (c) fear forcing withdrawal.

And most of all, the Bush administration has all of the Joe Kleins and Time Magazines they need to keep conventional Beltway wisdom on their side and spew just enough War Progress Stories to sustain the support they need. They have an open column in Time -- among many other places -- to continue to shape our the public debate over withdrawal.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Dems are playing a dangerous and stupid game with this iraq funding bill they are voting on today.

A major part of the problem is that for some reason, there seems to be a false picture of what will happen if the troops don't get the money.

What do YOU think will happen if they don't get the money?

Cycloptichorn

There are two probabilities:
(1) Bush will transfer funding from elsewhere in the budget and spend it on funding the troops in Iraq;
(2) Bush will have the treasury print money to fund the troops in Iraq.

In either case, the Democrats would then attempt to impeach and convict Bush.

Quote:

The Constitution of the United States of America:

Article II, Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I. Section 2. The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Article I, section 3. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

The Democrats might get a majority to impeach given help from some Republicans. I doubt that they'd get a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict, even with help from some Republicans.

Consequently, unless Bush changes his mind and decides to remove our troops from Iraq before he leaves office, leaving Iraq before then will probably not happen! So all the Democrats can really do is get their guys elected in November 2008. I think the Democrats understand this, and are programming their behavior to help them win support for their candidates in November 2008.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The Dems are playing a dangerous and stupid game with this iraq funding bill they are voting on today.

A major part of the problem is that for some reason, there seems to be a false picture of what will happen if the troops don't get the money.

What do YOU think will happen if they don't get the money?

Cycloptichorn

There are two probabilities:
(1) Bush will transfer funding from elsewhere in the budget and spend it on funding the troops in Iraq;
(2) Bush will have the treasury print money to fund the troops in Iraq.

In either case, the Democrats would then attempt to impeach and convict Bush.

Quote:
The Constitution of the United States of America:

Article II, Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I. Section 2. The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Article I, section 3. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

The Democrats might get a majority to impeach given help from some Republicans. I doubt that they'd get a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict, even with help from some Republicans.

Consequently, unless Bush changes his mind and decides to remove our troops from Iraq before he leaves office, leaving Iraq before then will probably not happen! So all the Democrats can really do is get their guys elected in November 2008. I think the Democrats understand this, and are programming their behavior to help them win support for their candidates in November 2008.

I think that if Bush defied the laws of the nation, he would be impeached. The Constitution is quite clear on this.

You don't think it's a probability that Bush will blink, and accept timelines on the war? I don't think Bush can just order the treasury to print billions of dollars to fund the war; that would destroy our whole economy, and that's counterproductive. Not to mention illegal.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

But as we are witnessing, the democratic led congress fears the boogy-man before their memorial day recess, and approved what Bush wanted.

Worthless.

0 Replies

Re: Improvement in Iraq: Trust Joe Klein and his secret sour

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Improvement in Iraq: Trust Joe Klein and his secret sources
by Glenn Greenwald - Salon
5/24/07

...

May. 24, 2007 | Q. If you're a Bush administration official and you want to create a prominent headline in Time Magazine proclaiming what great improvement there is in Iraq, what do you do?

A. Have someone with a shiny military uniform go and flatter Joe Klein by whispering "secrets" in his ear all while demanding anonymity, and then he'll dutifully run to the pages of Time and mindlessly repeat what he's been told as though he has discovered some great journalistic scoop, which is how Time will treat it.

...

As always, the very idea of granting anonymity to government sources to do nothing other than repeat pro-government claims is both manipulative and moronic on its face. What possible journalistic value could there ever be in cloaking someone with anonymity in order to say something that Tony Snow would happily say, and does say, every day from the White House Press Briefing Room?

...

Nothing has changed. Republicans and media-war-proponents are far too invested in the war to do anything other than claim it is finally going well. And there are more than enough Democrats who either (a) believe we should stay in Iraq indefinitely, (b) perceive political benefits from staying, and/or (c) fear forcing withdrawal.

And most of all, the Bush administration has all of the Joe Kleins and Time Magazines they need to keep conventional Beltway wisdom on their side and spew just enough War Progress Stories to sustain the support they need. They have an open column in Time -- among many other places -- to continue to shape our the public debate over withdrawal.

The left criticises the right for doing via the media exactly what the left is doing. Some call that hypocracy. I call it fraud.

0 Replies

Re: Improvement in Iraq: Trust Joe Klein and his secret sour

ican711nm wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Improvement in Iraq: Trust Joe Klein and his secret sources
by Glenn Greenwald - Salon
5/24/07

...

May. 24, 2007 | Q. If you're a Bush administration official and you want to create a prominent headline in Time Magazine proclaiming what great improvement there is in Iraq, what do you do?

A. Have someone with a shiny military uniform go and flatter Joe Klein by whispering "secrets" in his ear all while demanding anonymity, and then he'll dutifully run to the pages of Time and mindlessly repeat what he's been told as though he has discovered some great journalistic scoop, which is how Time will treat it.

...

As always, the very idea of granting anonymity to government sources to do nothing other than repeat pro-government claims is both manipulative and moronic on its face. What possible journalistic value could there ever be in cloaking someone with anonymity in order to say something that Tony Snow would happily say, and does say, every day from the White House Press Briefing Room?

...

Nothing has changed. Republicans and media-war-proponents are far too invested in the war to do anything other than claim it is finally going well. And there are more than enough Democrats who either (a) believe we should stay in Iraq indefinitely, (b) perceive political benefits from staying, and/or (c) fear forcing withdrawal.

And most of all, the Bush administration has all of the Joe Kleins and Time Magazines they need to keep conventional Beltway wisdom on their side and spew just enough War Progress Stories to sustain the support they need. They have an open column in Time -- among many other places -- to continue to shape our the public debate over withdrawal.

The left criticises the right for doing via the media exactly what the left is doing. Some call that hypocracy. I call it fraud.

Perhaps you meant 'hypocrisy.' And it seems you're confused about the meaning of the word 'fraud.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Re: Improvement in Iraq: Trust Joe Klein and his secret sour

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
Perhaps you meant 'hypocrisy.' And it seems you're confused about the meaning of the word 'fraud.'

Cycloptichorn

Thanks for the spelling help. Smile

Yes, I meant hypocrisy. But I am not confused about the meaning of the word fraud.

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/
Main Entry:hypocrisy Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: h päkr s , -si sometimes h -
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -es
Etymology: Middle English ipocrisie, from Old French ypocrisie, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, outward show, from hypokrinesthai to answer, play a part on the stage, act, pretend, from hypo- + krinesthai to dispute, krinein to decide, judge -- more at CERTAIN
1 : the act or practice of pretending to be what one is not or to have principles or beliefs that one does not have <the>; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion <may>
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy <the>

Main Entry: fraud Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: fr d
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: Middle English fraude, from Middle French, from Latin fraud-, fraus; akin to Sanskrit dh rvati he injures, dh rta fraudulent, and probably to Old High German triogan to deceive, Old Norse draugr ghost, Sanskrit droha injury, treachery
1 a : an instance or an act of trickery or deceit especially when involving misrepresentation : an act of deluding : DELUSION <the>: as (1) or fraud in fact : an intentional misrepresentation, concealment, or nondisclosure for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right : a false representation of a matter of fact by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by the concealment of what should have been disclosed that deceives or is intended to deceive another so he shall act upon it to his legal injury -- called also actual fraud (2) or fraud in equity : an act, omission to act, or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another (as an act in violation of a relationship of trust and confidence) -- called also equitable fraud, legal fraud; see CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD b : a means used in trickery : a dishonest stratagem or a spurious thing passed off as genuine : TRICK, HOAX <who>
2 : the quality of being deceitful : the disposition to deceive <the>
3 : the condition of being defrauded or beguiled
4 a : a person who is not what he pretends to be : PRETENDER, HUMBUG, HYPOCRITE <the> b : one who defrauds : CHEAT <the>
synonym see DECEPTION, IMPOSTURE

0 Replies

Saw an important TV programme on BBC2 this evening about secret CIA "rendition flights" taking terror suspects, some kidnapped citizens, illegally to remote detention centres (Poland, Bulgaria, Morocco, Guantanamo) where torture is used on them.

Not legal, not moral, and even ineffective as far as the process of law is concerned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/6683467.stm

0 Replies

I keep missing all the good tv programs

a. because I dont really think there are any anymore

b. because I cant be damn well bothered to read the acres of small print which tells you whats on

I guess I need a personal television guide consultant who knows me, knows what I like, knows what programmes are on, and knows where to find them.

No I didnt see the CIA rendition flights programme annoyingly.

0 Replies

from mctag's post :

Quote:

Saw an important TV programme on BBC2 this evening about secret CIA "rendition flights" taking terror suspects, some kidnapped citizens, illegally to remote detention centres (Poland, Bulgaria, Morocco, Guantanamo) where torture is used on them.

i'm sure those countries are all "beacons of freedom" Crying or Very sad

.
hbg

0 Replies

Especially our government in the US; talk about destroying everything once sacred in our country - 32 percent of Americans still support this regime.

0 Replies

AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops

By RICHARD LARDNER
1 hour, 12 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The system for delivering badly needed gear to Marines in Iraq has failed to meet many urgent requests for equipment from troops in the field, according to an internal document obtained by The Associated Press.

Of more than 100 requests from deployed Marine units between February 2006 and February 2007, less than 10 percent have been fulfilled, the document says. It blamed the bureaucracy and a "risk-averse" approach by acquisition officials.

0 Replies

Wanna send your family members to Iraq to fight this war? Be my guest.

0 Replies

26 killed at funeral procession in Iraq

By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer
17 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - A bomb hidden in a parked car struck the funeral procession of a Sunni tribal leader who was gunned down earlier Thursday, killing at least 26 mourners as al-Qaida appeared to turn up its campaign of frightening its growing opposition into submission.

The attack in Fallujah, 40 miles west of Baghdad, targeted the passing procession for Alaa Zuwaid, a 60-year-old restaurant owner who was part of a Sunni tribe that had formed an alliance with other tribal leaders against al-Qaida. Police and medical officials said 45 other people were wounded in the bombing.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

from mctag's post :

Quote:

Saw an important TV programme on BBC2 this evening about secret CIA "rendition flights" taking terror suspects, some kidnapped citizens, illegally to remote detention centres (Poland, Bulgaria, Morocco, Guantanamo) where torture is used on them.

i'm sure those countries are all "beacons of freedom" .
hbg

I missed out another one mentioned in that fascinating and chilling programme: Algeria.

Kind of fits the pattern.

Rendition flights were going through European cities (in Spain, UK, France, Germany) until human rights interests got involved; now most go straight to Algeria and Morocco.

US financial aid to Morocco has increased eight-fold since then, we were told.

0 Replies

IBC's Count of Civilians Killed in Iraq since 1/1/2003
iraq body count as of 4/30/2007

MONTHLY UPDATE OF IRAQ'S VIOLENT NON-COMBATANT DEATHS

............................... Monthly ........... Accumulated Total since
............................... Totals .............. January 1st 2003 ...........
December 2005 ............ ------ ..................... 36,859
January 2006 ............... 1,267 .................... 38,126
February 2006 .............. 1,287 .................... 39,413
March 2006 .................. 1,538 .................... 40,951
April 2006 .................... 1,287.................... 42,238
May 2006 ..................... 1,417 .................... 43,655
June 2006 ..................... 2,089 .................... 45,744
July 2006 ...................... 2,336 .................... 48,080
August 2006 ................ 1,195 .................... 49,275
September 2006 .......... 1,407..................... 50,682
October 2006 .............. 2,546 ..................... 53,228
November 2006 .......... 3,894 ..................... 57,122
December 2006 .......... 3,219 ..................... 60,341
January 2007 .............. 2,557 ..................... 62,898
February 2007 ............. 2,514 ..................... 65,412
March 2007 .................. 2,720 .................... 68,132
April 2007 .................... 2,339 .................... 70,471

0 Replies

ican, What's your point, exactly? According to IBC, that's about 78 killed per day on average during the past 12 month period.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

IBC's Count of Civilians Killed in Iraq since 1/1/2003
iraq body count as of 4/30/2007

MONTHLY UPDATE OF IRAQ'S VIOLENT NON-COMBATANT DEATHS

............................... Monthly ........... Accumulated Total since
............................... Totals .............. January 1st 2003 ...........
December 2005 ............ ------ ..................... 36,859
January 2006 ............... 1,267 .................... 38,126
February 2006 .............. 1,287 .................... 39,413
March 2006 .................. 1,538 .................... 40,951
April 2006 .................... 1,287.................... 42,238
May 2006 ..................... 1,417 .................... 43,655
June 2006 ..................... 2,089 .................... 45,744
July 2006 ...................... 2,336 .................... 48,080
August 2006 ................ 1,195 .................... 49,275
September 2006 .......... 1,407..................... 50,682
October 2006 .............. 2,546 ..................... 53,228
November 2006 .......... 3,894 ..................... 57,122
December 2006 .......... 3,219 ..................... 60,341
January 2007 .............. 2,557 ..................... 62,898
February 2007 ............. 2,514 ..................... 65,412
March 2007 .................. 2,720 .................... 68,132

You are aware the the Iraqi gov't no longer publishes death statistics in many cases, and has banned reporters from going to morgues to count for themselves?

Of course you are

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

IBC's Count of Civilians Killed in Iraq since 1/1/2003
iraq body count as of 4/30/2007

MONTHLY UPDATE OF IRAQ'S VIOLENT NON-COMBATANT DEATHS

............................... Monthly ........... Accumulated Total since
............................... Totals .............. January 1st 2003 ...........
December 2005 ............ ------ ..................... 36,859
January 2006 ............... 1,267 .................... 38,126
February 2006 .............. 1,287 .................... 39,413
March 2006 .................. 1,538 .................... 40,951
April 2006 .................... 1,287.................... 42,238
May 2006 ..................... 1,417 .................... 43,655
June 2006 ..................... 2,089 .................... 45,744
July 2006 ...................... 2,336 .................... 48,080
August 2006 ................ 1,195 .................... 49,275
September 2006 .......... 1,407..................... 50,682
October 2006 .............. 2,546 ..................... 53,228
November 2006 .......... 3,894 ..................... 57,122
December 2006 .......... 3,219 ..................... 60,341
January 2007 .............. 2,557 ..................... 62,898
February 2007 ............. 2,514 ..................... 65,412
March 2007 .................. 2,720 .................... 68,132
April 2007 .................... 2,339 .................... 70,471

Cice, My objective each month is to post the trend in the IBC Count of Civilians Killed in Iraq ... whatever that trend is.

Cyclo, IBC publishes its data on the web regardless of the claim by the media that the: "Iraqi gov't no longer publishes death statistics in many cases, and has banned reporters from going to morgues to count for themselves."

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
IBC's Count of Civilians Killed in Iraq since 1/1/2003
iraq body count as of 4/30/2007

MONTHLY UPDATE OF IRAQ'S VIOLENT NON-COMBATANT DEATHS

............................... Monthly ........... Accumulated Total since
............................... Totals .............. January 1st 2003 ...........
December 2005 ............ ------ ..................... 36,859
January 2006 ............... 1,267 .................... 38,126
February 2006 .............. 1,287 .................... 39,413
March 2006 .................. 1,538 .................... 40,951
April 2006 .................... 1,287.................... 42,238
May 2006 ..................... 1,417 .................... 43,655
June 2006 ..................... 2,089 .................... 45,744
July 2006 ...................... 2,336 .................... 48,080
August 2006 ................ 1,195 .................... 49,275
September 2006 .......... 1,407..................... 50,682
October 2006 .............. 2,546 ..................... 53,228
November 2006 .......... 3,894 ..................... 57,122
December 2006 .......... 3,219 ..................... 60,341
January 2007 .............. 2,557 ..................... 62,898
February 2007 ............. 2,514 ..................... 65,412
March 2007 .................. 2,720 .................... 68,132
April 2007 .................... 2,339 .................... 70,471

Cice, My objective each month is to post the trend in the IBC Count of Civilians Killed in Iraq ... whatever that trend is.

Cyclo, IBC publishes its data on the web regardless of the claim by the media that the: "Iraqi gov't no longer publishes death statistics in many cases, and has banned reporters from going to morgues to count for themselves."

Naturally, I know this fact.

IBC only publishes the casualties if they are reported in 2 different media sources. If the media can't report the number of casualties, they can't be counted by IBC. So, numbers which have always been known to be lower boundaries of the number of deceased are being lowered even farther by the actions of the Iraqi government.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know