If anyone still believes any info put out by the Bush administration, read this:

[Wally]

WASHINGTON - U.S. officials who say there has been a dramatic drop in sectarian violence in Iraq since President Bush began sending more American troops into Baghdad aren't counting one of the main killers of Iraqi civilians.


Car bombs and other explosive devices have killed thousands of Iraqis in the past three years, but the administration doesn't include them in the casualty counts it has been citing as evidence that the surge of additional U.S. forces is beginning to defuse tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.


President Bush explained why in a television interview on Tuesday. "If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings, we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory," he told TV interviewer Charlie Rose.



http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17134253.htm

Is this what they call fuzzy math? Couldn't Bush use the same rationale to exclude Iraqi or American fatalities by any cause?

[The President]

It is stupid to exclude car bombings, but it is also stupid to draw conclusions based on them in isolation since they are sort of "lumpy" in nature.

[Banquet of Chestnuts]

It is stupid to exclude car bombings, but it is also stupid to draw conclusions based on them in isolation since they are sort of "lumpy" in nature.
They're pretty much continuous in Iraq, not "lumpy" at all.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

If they appear lumpy to you, it probably means a car bomb doesn't make the news anymore these days.

[The President]

They're pretty much continuous in Iraq, not "lumpy" at all.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

If they appear lumpy to you, it probably means a car bomb doesn't make the news anymore these days.
I was thinking lumpy in terms of sometimes one goes off and takes out 100 people; the drop from 520 to 323 seems insignificant in terms of finding a trend...
Deaths from car bombings and improvised explosive devices, however, increased from 361 in December to a peak of 520 in February before dropping to 323 in March.

[Wally]

Again, given Bush's standard of integrity, I'm sure anyone with enough intelligence to be an actuary will take all his pronouncements with a grain of salt now. Here's the latest. You know the party line that the news media only reports the negative and ignores all the encouraging accomplishments and successes? Well ...

"In a troubling sign for the American-financed rebuilding program in Iraq, inspectors for a federal oversight agency have found that in a sampling of eight projects that the United States had declared successes, seven were no longer operating as designed because of plumbing and electrical failures, lack of proper maintenance, apparent looting and expensive equipment that lay idle."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/world/middleeast/29reconstruct.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Damn oversight.

[The Mad Hatter]

I am still wondering why anyone here still thinks that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a success. Anyone?

[SirVLCIV]

I am still wondering why anyone here still thinks that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a success. Anyone?

I bet Doctor Infinity does.

[Griffin 6]

I bet Doctor Infinity does.I know that it's been a success, too.

[IAm@Work.com]

It appears that the NY Times beleives that things are getting better in Iraq.
RAMADI, Iraq — Anbar Province, long the lawless heartland of the tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat. Link, not requiring ID or password. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/world/middleeast/29ramadi.html?ex=1178596800&en=0961956a0cfbe7e9&ei=5070&emc=eta1)

So what does that mean? Is Bush right? Have aliens taken over at the Times? What?

[SirVLCIV]

It appears that the NY Times beleives that things are getting better in Iraq.
Link, not requiring ID or password. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/world/middleeast/29ramadi.html?ex=1178596800&en=0961956a0cfbe7e9&ei=5070&emc=eta1)

So what does that mean? Is Bush right? Have aliens taken over at the Times? What?

I don't know what it means to someone that has only two sides to every issue: "with us" and "against us."

:shrug:

[Harry]

It appears that the NY Times beleives that things are getting better in Iraq.
Link, not requiring ID or password. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/world/middleeast/29ramadi.html?ex=1178596800&en=0961956a0cfbe7e9&ei=5070&emc=eta1)

So what does that mean? Is Bush right? Have aliens taken over at the Times? What?
Actually, it appears you didn't get very far in the article.

Yet for all the indications of a heartening turnaround in Anbar, the situation, as it appeared during more than a week spent with American troops in Ramadi and Falluja in early April, is at best uneasy and fragile.
Municipal services remain a wreck; local governments, while reviving, are still barely functioning; and years of fighting have damaged much of Ramadi.

The insurgency in Anbar — a mix of Islamic militants, former Baathists and recalcitrant tribesmen — still thrives among the province’s overwhelmingly Sunni population, killing American and Iraqi security forces and civilians alike. [This was underscored by three suicide car-bomb attacks in Ramadi on Monday and Tuesday, in which at least 15 people were killed and 47 were wounded, American officials said. Eight American service members — five marines and three soldiers — were killed in two attacks on Thursday and Friday in Anbar, the American military said.]

Furthermore, some American officials readily acknowledge that they have entered an uncertain marriage of convenience with the tribes, some of whom were themselves involved in the insurgency, to one extent or another. American officials are also negotiating with elements of the 1920 Revolution Brigades, a leading insurgent group in Anbar, to join their fight against Al Qaeda.

[IAm@Work.com]

Actually, it appears you didn't get very far in the article.Agreed. In fact, I didn't read past that first paragraph I quoted above.

If I had quoted that paragraph last week, and told you it would be the opening of a NYT article, would you have believed me?

[gomer_tree]

Actually, it appears you didn't get very far in the article.

All this says is that things are getting better, but it's fragile. From where I stand, the qualifier does not negate the conclusion.

It's a valid observation, but those kind of qualifiers get added onto nearly evberything. "Inflation is at its lowest is decades, but oil prices may impact that..." "Unemployment is at its lowest since YYYY, but there is trouble brewing in the manufacturing sector" and so on.

I defy you to find any good trends in the NY Times, at least during a Republican administration, that isn't followed by some "warning" of where things could go horribly wrong.

[gomer_tree]

OK, so car bombs are excluded. Are they excluded on a before/after basis, or only on an "after" basis? If they are excluded consistently, then I really don't see the issue.

[SamTheEagle]

OK, so car bombs are excluded. Are they excluded on a before/after basis, or only on an "after" basis? If they are excluded consistently, then I really don't see the issue.

Not necessarily. If US tactics are having an effect such that car bombs are increasing while other attacks are decreasing, with the effect being that total casualties aren't changing all that much, excluding them will give an inaccurate perception of the effectiveness of the US tactics.

[lennie]

I don't know what it means to someone that has only two sides to every issue: "with us" and "against us."

:shrug:

Are you "with us?" If not, use the process of elimination to figure out what it means.

[Harry]

Agreed. In fact, I didn't read past that first paragraph I quoted above.

If I had quoted that paragraph last week, and told you it would be the opening of a NYT article, would you have believed me?
Sure.