Comments on: Pentagon and Petraeus’ casualty data ‘differ significantly.’

By: piniella

piniella — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 04:00:33 +0000

EXLEY writes “current analysis by all parties indicates the surge is indeed working.”

The whole point of the Surge was to promote political reconcilation. There has been almost NONE since the Surge began.

By: piniella

piniella — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 03:57:36 +0000

EXLEY writes “It is simply an article describing the difficulty of categorizing casualties in a complex conflict in Iraqâ€¦.”

Sounds like it’s so complex, we can’t even keep score. How, then, are we going to win?

By: duus

duus — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:07:44 +0000

The pentagon is anti-military. I expect a bill condemning the pentagon to appear in the senate immedately.

By: tombaker

tombaker — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:36:23 +0000

You’re correct Shinobi. Arguing about the validity of statistics while bodies and parts of bodies pile up is kind of sick, anyway.

By: Shinobi

Shinobi — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:05:19 +0000

For the record, I’m not a fan of the surge or the war or the bush administration.

As a statistician however it would be intellectually dishonest of me not to point out that statistics are much less finite than the general public would like to believe. They are generally estimates based on certain rules and depending on the organization those estimates might vary widely.

So, just because the pentagon and the general’s stats don’t match does not mean that one of them is making stuff up.

When it comes to statistics the important thing is not always “are these two numbers equal” the key is, would I draw the same conclusions from both sets of numbers purporting to measure the same thing? IF the answer is yes then the differences are mere semantics. If the answer is no then further investigation into why is required. (But that still doesn’t mean that one of them is lying.)

Personally I’d much rather say that Petraus is an lying murdering bastard, but, that would be a lie.

By: tombaker

tombaker — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:45:22 +0000

Thanks, Ex, for acknowledging that I was fundamentally correct in my charge.

By: gak

gak — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:38:28 +0000

so if we canâ€™t call Petraeus a liar even though he is one, what do we call him “truth challenged”? Or is manipulative political hack OK?
.

By: ggibson1

ggibson1 — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:31:10 +0000

Who really cares about these numbers?

911 happened…

Democrats were attacked with a biological American military weapon called Anthrax by someone in America…

Bushies produced fraudulent forged yellow cake documents along with many lies to scare the dumbed down Americans…

Once you start raping Iraq there is no amount of numbers that are going to prove that it was ok to start raping…

If you are the agressor you shall NEVER become the hero… stop trying to save face… it is too late for that now… get out and accept responsibility and focus on DEFENSE from a small group of attackers…

By: Parrotlover77

Parrotlover77 — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:30:48 +0000

Why does the truth hate our troops so much?

By: Ret. Col. Jack Ripper

Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:25:26 +0000

Exley: “#18 â€œPyyrhicâ€ contribution?

To quote Inigo Montoya:

â€œYou keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.â€

Wow, and people like Exley like to call liberals “elitists.”

By: Exley

Exley — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:09:34 +0000

#23, Ah yes, Pyrrhus (who you misidentified last night as “Pyrrho”)

‘Pyrrho strikes again. Congratulations, Exley.
Comment by tombaker â€” September 25, 2007 @ 12:39 am’

Putting aside that error on your part, that fact is that I have shown that many posters here either misread (or failed to read) the WaPo article and TPM analysis and missed what was actually written, including the fact that current analysis by all parties indicates the surge is indeed working.

And it is more than a “Pyyrhic victory” if my generous efforts get more of you folks to actually read articles before commenting on them….Not only would such efforts elevate the discussion, it would spare many of yoy future embarrassments.

By: tombaker

tombaker — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:59:18 +0000

geez, Ex – I thought it had to do with a General who fought a brilliant battle, yet “won” nothing. Am I wrong, or do you actually “win” something through your hairsplitting pedantry? (if so, I’ve failed to apprehend the effect)

By: Lefty Patriot

Lefty Patriot — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:59:08 +0000

the difference btween Betrayus and exlax is the letter “L”. Betrayus gets paid, exlax gets played.

By: Ret. Col. Jack Ripper

Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:56:44 +0000

Exley: “It is simply an article describing the difficulty of categorizing casualties in a complex conflict in Iraqâ€¦.”

Yes, it’s very difficult when you’re continually trying to fix the numbers by not counting car bomb deaths, sectarian executions and private contractor casulties. And, credibility tends to be questioned when you’re making the same rosy predictions you made 3 years ago which turned out horribly wrong.

Exley, just give up. I think the posters around here are very representative of the majority opinion in this country which is that we’re tired of listening to bullshite from warmongers like you.

By: Lefty Patriot

Lefty Patriot — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:55:46 +0000

so Betryus lies and exlax swears to it. what a surprise.

By: Exley

Exley — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:54:26 +0000

#18 “Pyyrhic” contribution?

To quote Inigo Montoya:

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

By: tombaker

tombaker — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:42:34 +0000

14 -thanks again, Ex for your remarkably Pyrrhic contribution.

I’ll bet teachers just loved explaining their grading systems to you over and over again when you were a student.

By: rehbock

rehbock — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:26:55 +0000

Cute play on names, the new treason. When I was a child I had longer hair than many of the other boys. I remember being called Roberta and it made me mad.
My mom said sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me.
So what if his name invites this. I thought this first time I heard his name. The issue is whether he has accomplished anything in Iraq.
Another saying I remember is that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. It seems he has adopted that in reporting his improvement analysis.

By: Severus

Severus — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:23:03 +0000

How about this…rather than trying to define sectarian or non-sectarian deaths, rather than trying to parse out stats that beneift your argument, whether your argument is pro war or not. How about just looking at it froma violent death and injury standpoint? Are total violent deaths and injuries up or down?

This reminds me of the great war on drugs in the 1980’s. They were continually coming out with stats showing that the drug problem was out of control and getting worse. After all the numbers don’t lie, do they? Arrests were up, convictions were up, yet the problem persisted, so it must have been really really bad. What they almost always left out of the debate was the fact that laws had been changed so there were more crimes out there to look for where arrests and convictions would support the notion that the problem was out of control. The same thing is going on with this debate. I am shocked that no committee member asked the general about simple raw violent death and injury figures.

By: The Republic of Stupidity

The Republic of Stupidity — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:22:33 +0000

Comment by Exley â€” September 25, 2007 @ 12:09 pm

Exley, I doubt if there’s a single poster here other than yourself who gives a flying F- what you have to say anymore.

Even Freidman is saying it’s time to get out.

Any room on the short bus for Exley? Next stop, Clown Alley.