Ezra Klein: Neat Trick

« Your Bimonthly Lieberman Op-Ed | Main | Dispatches From When The Country Went Crazy: Chapter III »

April 26, 2007

Neat Trick

Via Norbizness comes this revealing little story on why the Iraqi casualty numbers mentioned by the administration seem to be dropping, even as the violence appears to be getting worse. "Car bombs and other explosive devices have killed thousands of Iraqis in the past three years," McClatchy newspapers reports, "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."

In other news, murder rates are dropping (Disclaimer: Does not include shootings) and death rates from cardiovascular disease are plummeting (Disclaimer: Does not include heart attacks). Of course, the Bush administration offers no disclaimers -- this is about principle, not accuracy. "If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings," Bush recently said, "we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory." Unless, of course, we clamp our eyes shut, firmly affix our hands to our ears, and pretend there are no car bombings and suicide bombings. If we don't mention them, it's like they never happened.

Except, of course, for the Iraqis.

April 26, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

This is yet another manifestation of the Republican's seeming incapacity to understand their decline. For years after 9/11 they were able to lie with impunity and were handsomely rewarded by the voters. Car bombs don't count as death and destruction, Sen. Kerry was not a war hero but rather a pathological liar, Sadaam is close to having the atomic bomb. Now that the public has concluded they no longer want to believe their lies and will punish them when they do, they are unable to adjust and develop a new strategy. So the lies continue (Rove was just providing informational briefings at the federal agencies). They lie like they breathe and just as they can't stop breathing, they can't stop lying.

Posted by: dmh | Apr 26, 2007 11:13:03 AM

OK, should we not count suicide pilots, either? Because that would have saved us a lot of upset over the last 5 1/2 years.

Posted by: Karl Rove's fax machine | Apr 26, 2007 11:24:27 AM

One advantage of listening to and reading news from good sources is that it makes stories like this one non-stories. This is essentially what I've heard and read from a variety of sources for several weeks, that the overall deaths have been down, that the sectarian shootings are way down, and that the bombing deaths are way up--worse this month than ever. I see nothing significantly new in the article, and nothing that Administration officials haven't been acknowledging all along. Deaths from sectarian killings and car bombings are treated differently because they generally indicate different things.

The article gives the impression that Petraeus isn't very concerned about the bombings, and has no plans to deal with them, but he was quoted yesterday saying the opposite, that he and his generals are very much focused on finding a tactic to deal with the bombings.

DMH, it has struck me in the past that those most free in calling others liars tend to be the least careful and intellectually honest about their own facts in regard to the supposed lies.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 26, 2007 11:50:21 AM

Sanpete, perhaps I am dimwitted but I don't get your point. Which lie that I set out above was, in fact, true? Kerry concocted his war record? Sadaam had a functioning nuclear program? Rove was not using the federal beauracracy for partisan political ends? Tell me, which lies is true?

As to the point in the post, just the other day the Administration floated the notion that car bombings are an acceptable form of violence in Iraq. Is that the war we are willing to continue fighting?

Posted by: dmh | Apr 26, 2007 1:05:35 PM

DMH, none of those claims were true, but you haven't shown that any of them are properly classed as Republican lies either. No one has said or implied that car bombs don't count as death and destruction; they aren't counted the way sectarian shootings are as directly sectarian killings. A few Republicans claimed Kerry was a liar, but most never did. I think it's pretty clear that people are good at fooling themselves about the facts to suit their purposes, and that the Administration did that in regard to Iraq. They wanted very badly to believe that Iraq was a threat, and they didn't trust the intelligence services, so they found evidence for it themselves and pressured the CIA to find evidence. That's intellectually dishonest, but it isn't saying things they didn't believe. I think they really believed all that crap, and the behind-the-scenes books support that view. "A slam dunk!" You've been very loose with your treatment of this.

I'm not aware that the Administration has floated the idea that car bombs are ever acceptable. They've floated the idea that, as was the case in Ireland, it might be a while before such events can be eliminated.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 26, 2007 1:57:53 PM

I have a suggestion to make. Instead of lies, lets substitute untruths, falsehoods or even, nonfactual statements. Then perhaps we can avoid the tedious repetion of this strained argument.

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 26, 2007 2:18:33 PM

"Unless, of course, we clamp our eyes shut, firmly affix our hands to our ears, and pretend... "

You've just described every bush supporter for the last eight years.

Posted by: ice weasel | Apr 26, 2007 2:34:34 PM

I have a suggestion to make. Instead of lies, lets substitute untruths, falsehoods or even, nonfactual statements. Then perhaps we can avoid the tedious repetion of this strained argument.

That would be more accurate in some cases, where there's actually a false claim. It's tedious indeed to have to point out the difference between lying and other forms of intellectual dishonesty, or merely being mistaken. Weasel, for example, isn't lying, only greatly exaggerating, whether for comic effect or just from having exaggerated views.

But my primary objection here isn't about lying vs. other falseness. It's about whether there are even falsehoods involved.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 26, 2007 2:49:16 PM

Sanpete, the fact that false statements were made is beyond dispute. The only question is whether or not they were intentional.

Given the proliferation of such counter factual claims over a wide variety of topics, all tending to the benefit of the administration and it's allies, many consider that a compelling circumstantial case for both intentionality and agency has been made.

You disagree. That's your privilege. However, the fact of your disagreement does not render such judgements intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 26, 2007 3:31:56 PM

WBR, I don't know what false statements you have in mind, but I'm speaking first of all of the ones some, such as DMH, infer in regard to the stats from Iraq that are the topic of this thread. I haven't seen any false statements on that, only differences over how the stats should be interpreted.

The Swiftboat Veterans attack on Kerry may have involved lies or just differing recollections, and was never backed by most Republicans.

In regard to the WMD, the best accounts we have indicate that the leading figures in the Administration believed what they were saying, for the reasons I gave, which explain your evidence. It's possible they didn't, of course, but I'll give more weight to the particulars of the best evidence we have than to vague suspicions. Not sure what you mean by intentionality and agency, which were both involved, in my view, but perhaps not as you intend.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 26, 2007 4:33:05 PM

Why would they factor the car/suicide bombs in determining whether the surge was having an effect on sectarian hostilities when such attacks are primarily carried out by foreign terror groups and not the domestic shia and sunni militia's?

Even the article goes on to say "Overall, statistics indicate that the number of violent deaths has declined significantly since December" yet your post insinuates that any progress being reported is simply a statistical illusion.

Posted by: henry hazlitt | Apr 26, 2007 4:46:17 PM

The Swiftboat Veterans attack on Kerry may have involved lies or just differing recollections, and was never backed by most Republicans.

How many Republican leaders denounced or repudiated them?

So you think that Cheney, et al. were unaware of any doubts about the Niger yellow cake story?

Intentionality and agency/Intentional and active dishonesty.

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 26, 2007 5:20:25 PM

How many Republican leaders denounced or repudiated them?

Don't recall. I recall that McCain did immediately, and it seems Bush did too. But many probably weren't sure who to believe. There was a similar campaign against Bush later, in regard to his military service, one welcomed by many Democrats.

So you think that Cheney, et al. were unaware of any doubts about the Niger yellow cake story?

No, they were aware of the doubts, but didn't credit them.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 27, 2007 6:47:08 PM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘