The spin that is applied to the numbers from Iraq makes everything look like the Democratic agenda wants it to. The news has to be bad - the news has to show America in the worst possible light.
The terrorists love the American media. They are a team.
(From Gateway Pundit)So, How Bad Are Things in Iraq Really?
We all know that despite news reports of massacre and carnage, the civilian death toll in Iraq has gone down considerably since the war to remove Saddam Hussein began back in March 2003.Here are more figures on how the Iraq War stacks up historically:
The recorded Iraqi civilian fatalities (including insurgents, military, morgue counts, police, etc.) were down 16% (16% maximum) in 2005... 38% (48% maximum) less than 2003 (via Leftist anti-war site Iraq Body Count).
If you take out the numbers from that horrible day in August 2005 when nearly one thousand panicked Iraqis were trampled or drowned near a Muslim shrine, the year shows striking progress compared to 2003 and 2004 with fatalities one third less than in 2004.Ann Althouse (via Glenn Reynolds) reported this comparison of Iraqi Civilian War casualties with other conflicts in recent history: Click on picture to enlarge.This shows how Iraq War Casualties compares to other American Wars:(2,471 Iraq War Fatalities as of 5/31/2006) John Hinderaker at Powerline adds this:
A total of 2,471 servicemembers have died in Iraq from 2003 to the present, a period of a little over three years. That total is almost exactly one third of the number of military personnel who died on active duty from 1980 to 1982, a comparable time period when no wars were being fought.
Until very recently, our armed forces lost servicemen at a greater rate than we have experienced in Iraq, due solely to accidental death. Do you recall that during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s there was any suggestion, from anyone, that our military policies were somehow disastrous due to fatalities among our servicemen--fatalities that nearly always exceeded those we are now experiencing in Iraq? No, neither do I. And, please don't bring up Russian military casualties:
In 2004, Russia lost conservatively 1,100 military men and women- no war. In 2004, the US lost 848 military men and women- Iraq War. Here's more perspective on how the War in Iraq stacks up compared to other US Wars:Iraq is no Vietnam, or Civil War or War of 1812! Historically, this war has been a remarkable success.To further put things in perspective, Newsmax reported yesterday that...Iraq Is Less Violent than Washington, D.C.
Despite media coverage purporting to show that escalating violence in Iraq has the country spiraling out of control, civilian death statistics complied by Rep. Steve King, R-IA, indicate that Iraq actually has a lower civilian violent death rate than Washington, D.C.Appearing with Westwood One radio host Monica Crowley on
Saturday, King said that the incessantly negative coverage of the Iraq war prompted him to research the actual death numbers."I began to ask myself the question, if you were a civilian in Iraq, how could you tolerate that level of violence," he said. "What really is the level of violence?"Using Pentagon statistics cross-checked with independent research, King said he came up with an annualized Iraqi civilian death rate of 27.51 per 100,000.
While that number sounds high - astonishingly, the Iowa Republican discovered that it's significantly lower than a number of major American cities, including the nation's capital."It's 45 violent deaths per 100,000 in Washington, D.C.," King told Crowley. Other American cities with higher violent civilian death rates than Iraq include:Detroit - 41.8 per 100,000Baltimore - 37.7 per 100,000Something to think about when you read the next "Iraq the quagmire" headline!
Hat Tip SugieroUpdate: (5:00 PM) Rep. King's numbers appear to be low. The broader point still holds. I stand corrected.
posted by Gateway Pundit at 5/31/2006 05:52:00 AM
postCountTB('114905310384330961');
Trackbacks (3)
