1115.org

Comments

1. JimC wrote:

   Here is another a HREF=”http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1772558920070917?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews”>source for claiming violence is down.

   Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 8:03 am ¶

2. JimC wrote:

   Ok, the link button doesn’t work and so I have to manually form links and this is what happens :-)

   The link.

   Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 8:05 am ¶

3. matt wrote:

   perhaps you can explain this:

   OK, you would have thought that after all the heat that the Pentagon took for its inconsistent violence numbers they would have been very careful about the latest data that they issued in their September report to Congress. But they weren’t. There are significant inconsistencies between the numbers General Petraeus showed to Congress regarding civilian casualties and the numbers in the Pentagon’s latest reports. Again, Petraeus’s numbers seem to make the period before the surge look worse and the numbers after the surge look much better.

   I graphed the Pentgon’s data on civilian casualties from its latest report (Pg 20). The data is for daily casualties, which includes both wounded and killed (I only included Iraqi civilians, which is the green bar). I converted the numbers to monthly casualties and compared it to the civilian death numbers on Page 3 of General Petraeus’s presentation to Congress. I don’t know if the data comes from the same source. Although, to be clear the Pentagon report data comes from the database that Petraeus himself stated was the best source of information and was verified by two U.S. intel agencies. Petraeus’s data comes from “Coalition and Host Nation Reporting.” I graphed everything based on eyeballing the data so the numbers are not exact.
   […]
   According to the MNC-I data there has been no improvement since either December (The numbers Petraeus and the Administration often cite) or February (when the surge actually began). Why wasn’t Congress shown these numbers in the presentation by General Petraeus? Why only the good news numbers? Why the lack of clarity on Petraeus’s sourcing? Especially since he himself acknowledged that the best numbers come from the MNC-I database.

   Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 9:29 am ¶

4. JimC wrote:

   I can’t explain it other than they had difference sources or methodologies, perhaps some Democrats should gain the appropriate security clearance and have Petraeus explain it to them, or have both the Pentagon and the General explain both sets of numbers. Surely there are Senators and Representatives that have or can get the security clearance to review the sources for Petraeus’ numbers. Why aren’t our congressional leaders doing this so that we can get assurances from them about the accuracy instead of just opinions and speculation? I have my theories…

   Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 9:56 am ¶

5. matt wrote:

   I can’t explain it other than they had difference sources or methodologies

   excellent explanation. so it’s up to the interpreters, not the producers of the numbers. fantastic.

   is petraeus still part of the pentagon or has he gone over to the white house already?

   Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 10:12 am ¶

6. JimC wrote:

   so it’s up to the interpreters

   Yeah it kind of is…when I estimate how long it will take too a project and then someone else estimates it and comes up with a wide variance, then my boss gets us together and asks each of to demonstrate how we came up with the numbers, what assumptions, etc. This is what I am suggesting, that Pretraeus and anyone else who published differing numbers should explain it to members of congress and then they can let us know if it is explainable or bogus. But that wouldn’t be as much fun as just guessing…..

   Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 10:16 am ¶

7. matt wrote:

   Yeah it kind of is

   not when the intent is to inform rather than deceive. period.

   i don’t give a fuck about your job. this is the pentagon.

   Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 10:21 am ¶

8. JimC wrote:

   i don’t give a fuck about your job. this is the pentagon.

   Calm down, that was just an illustration as to how this should be reconciled. We have conflicting numbers from what should otherwise be in sync, so those who can, should bring them to account for the discrepancy, no?

   Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 10:25 am ¶

9. matt wrote:

   so those who can, should bring them to account for the discrepancy, no?

   that’s not the point. of course they will try, but they’ll be stonewalled just like every other time they’ve tried to get answers. or are you going to argue that the administrations has been perfectly forthcoming?

   Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 10:31 am ¶

10. JimC wrote:

    are you going to argue that the administrations has been perfectly forthcoming?

    No I am not arguing one way or the other, I am arguing that if Petraeus’ numbers and the any other account from the Pentagon do not match and we want it reconciled, then our congressional leaders should be the ones to resolve the discrepancy instead of letting it just be speculation and cause for mistrust of the military.

    Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 10:41 am ¶

11. matt wrote:

    No I am not arguing one way or the other

    why? we’ve painstakingly documented how the administration has refused to hand over documents on any number of congressional and legal subpoenas. you can’t take a pass, sorry.

    the pentagon made their own bed by releasing two differing sets of numbers. it’s nobody’s responsibility but their own to reconcile them. but, oh, they’ve classified their methodology. how convenient.

    now stop playing games.

    Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 11:09 am ¶

12. JimC wrote:

    why? we’ve painstakingly documented how the administration has refused to hand over documents on any number of congressional and legal subpoenas. you can’t take a pass, sorry.

    No they haven’t been freely willing to hand out information but I don’t think that everything hasto obe handed out either but that is beside the point here when talking about Petraeus’ numbers versus the Pentagon Sept. report.

    it’s nobody’s responsibility but their own to reconcile them.

    I agree and I think I said that but since

    they’ve classified their methodology

    It is then up to the congress to force the reconciliation even if it is under the protection of security, they at least can be our representatives and find out from the sources why there is a discrepancy.

    Tell me you do not think congressional members should request security clearance and a review of the methodology used? If the military classifies it, fine, let then our elected leaders be our eyes and ears and let us know if it is legit or not.

    Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 11:29 am ¶

13. matt wrote:

    Tell me you do not think congressional members should request security clearance and a review of the methodology used?

    of course they should. but that’s not the point. i’ve made my point, and you haven’t done anything at all to knock that down. we’re debating a fantasy.

    If the military classifies it, fine, let then our elected leaders be our eyes and ears and let us know if it is legit or not.

    a) why does math need to be classified?
    b) when the military stonewalls on the orders of commander squinty, what will you say then?

    Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 11:45 am ¶

14. JimC wrote:

    a) why does math need to be classified?

    That’s what congress needs to find out. They’re not supposed to be impotent, they are just choosing to be impotent.

    b) when the military stonewalls on the orders of commander squinty, what will you say then?

    Court-martial them because commander squinty is the Commander-in-Chief and they will follow orders.

    Personally, if I were a member of the Democratic party and believed Petraeus cooked the books but my party leaders retreated without getting tough, I would be a bit disappointed.

    “Sorry, we asked the General but he wouldn’t tell us and he’s a bit scary with all that cabbage on his chest, oh well, we tried.”

    In fact I want someone to press it because it just looks bad to let the theories and accusations run amok.

    Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 12:24 pm ¶

Post a Comment