Thursday, April 06, 2006

EVEN I DIDN'T KNOW THIS

How could anyone possibly be aware of these "Numbers" if they were depending on the MSM for their information?(hat tip: Belmont Club)
81, 76, 50, 49, 43, 25

What are these numbers? This week’s Powerball winners? A safe deposit combo? New numbers to torment those poor b*stards stranded on the island in Lost?

No, they’re the number of troops that have died in hostile actions in Iraq for each of the past six months. That last number represents the lowest level of troop deaths in a year, and second-lowest in two years.

But it must be that the insurgency is turning their assault on Iraqi military and police, who are increasingly taking up the slack, right?

215, 176, 193, 189, 158, 193 (and the three months before that were 304, 282, 233)

Okay, okay, so insurgents aren’t engaging us; they’re turning increasingly to car bombs then, right?

70, 70, 70, 68, 30, 30

Civilians then. They’re just garroting poor civilians.

527, 826, 532, 732, 950, 446 (upper bound, two months before that were 2489 and 1129).


Yesterday I said with a great deal of sarcasm that "...the MSM is still trying to lose the war for us....they are focused on the daily death toll and are intent in convincing the American public that we are in the middle of a military quagmire; and that our military is losing in Iraq." I was more right than I supposed.

Because even as they obsessively have focused on the Iraq daily death tolls-- screaming about quagmires and civil wars--they have completely failed to put even that news into any context.

It is not possible to ignore any longer their culpabillity in enabling the enemy and taking on the role of propaganda outlet for them; nor their ignorance and sheer, willful blindness about their own perverted agenda.

UPDATE: These days we have to look to unexpected sources if we want to see honesty and integrity in confronting the real issues of our world--something we once depended on our free press to do. But the editors and journalists of that press are too busy being "sensitive".

No comments: