The "Surging" Flip-Flop Coalition
The Washington Times piece details the flip-flopping that members of the Craven Caucus (mostly Democrats, but also Chuck Hagel) have done when it comes to the Iraq troop surge.
Some are justifying their change of heart on the grounds that the war has become "bloody and unpopular." Bloody? With between 3 and 4 thousand troops dead? Of course, every single one of those lives was precious, but let's not forget that, in over four years, it's about the same number as the lives snuffed out in the space of moments on 9/11.
The real key is the word "unpopular." The war has, indeed, become unpopular, and politicians' shifting stances reveal more plainly than ever who are the finger-in-the-wind people, who care more about their own popularity than they do about national security and American victory in Iraq.
Some are justifying their change of heart on the grounds that the war has become "bloody and unpopular." Bloody? With between 3 and 4 thousand troops dead? Of course, every single one of those lives was precious, but let's not forget that, in over four years, it's about the same number as the lives snuffed out in the space of moments on 9/11.
The real key is the word "unpopular." The war has, indeed, become unpopular, and politicians' shifting stances reveal more plainly than ever who are the finger-in-the-wind people, who care more about their own popularity than they do about national security and American victory in Iraq.
posted by LadybugUSA at 12:42 PM
6 Comments:
Well... there's the 600,000 dead Iraqis as well.
World War 2 would have been unpopular if the one-sided "news" of today was the coverage then. The carnage of D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge and Iwo Jima and Okinawa would have had calls for an end to the misery.
600,000 dead Iraqis. A greatly disputed stat. How many are innocent civilians or scumbags is also in question. That there would be some number that makes a difference in continuing or retreating is shameful. We fight on as much for the dead as for the living. Retreat would be dishonoring the dead, especially when victory is possible if not certain. Yeah, you read that right. There's no other attitude a good American should have in times of war. We're capable and equipped. Let's get it done.
The Lancet figure was the result of a scientific study based upon cluster sampling. The researchers were associated with John Hopkins and the study was peer reviewed.
The study's conclusions are only disputed by those who have no idea about statistical research and those who don't like hearing the truth - which are pretty much the same group of people.
And had the dead some type of tattoos labelling them as innocent or terrorist? Did they have markings that proved how they died? There have been lots of distorted reporting of events and details where radicals are involved. You can believe it was one million Iraqis if it bolsters your oppositional attitudes. I have no illusions about who's responsible for dead civilians in Iraq. BTW, give me a call when science is infallible.
OK OSO - I have a graduate degree in Statistics and teach Management Science at a local college.
Sampling is by definition subject to error - to quote these statistics without discussing the sampling method or acceptable error is irresponsible.
I'm sorry - I dispute these numbers untill I can get more information
Post a Comment
<< Home