Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I think it is. My key point here is that you can't just look at casualty rates in a vacuum.
I'm sorry. When in this thread did you actually list "numerous criticism"? Repeating assumptions of failure doesn't count. The closest you came was linking a site with yearly assessments regarding Iraq. Interestingly enough, it looks as though you just assumed that those assessments all say what you believe them to say. I, on the otherhand, actually read them and pointed out the patterns that I saw, and which happened to support what I was saying about Iraq.
You *are* assuming that since the casualty rates have gone up, that this must mean that everything else has gotten worse as well. And if you look just at the last year and a half or so, you're correct. However, my statement (the one which started this thread in fact) was that things in Iraq were getting better until Murtha (and other Dems) started declaring Iraq a failure and calling for withdrawal. At the time in question (late 2005) things in fact had been steadily getting *better* for 2 years. The only thing that hadn't gotten significantly better was the violence rate (which had fallen off in 2005, but was still "high").
Hence, my assertion that the only measurement upon which Murtha (and others) could have been calling Iraq a failure was that violence rate (casualty rates of US troops really). Hence, my statement above. You may not have personally said that, but you're arguing against my line of logic yet have not shown how any other facet was "getting worse" in the 2004-2005 time frame.
What I find most telling is a chart in the very link you provided. It charts responses to the question "Do you think Iraq today is heading in the right or wrong direction?". Highest point? Summer of 2005. Lowest point? Summer of 2006. Interstingly enough, that number starts to climb in late 2006. It doesn't have numbers for 2007. It's odd though, that the big "dip" in the "right way" value occurs right during election season in the US. Coincidence? I think not...
My hypothesis is that the Dems orchestrated the entire "Iraq is failing" argument to give them a platform to win on in the 2006 elections. So far every single indicator bears out that hypothesis. The numbers show that both conditions and perception of conditions fall *after* Murtha began calling Iraq a failure and calling for withdrawal. Feel free to check the numbers yourself Joph. It's really really obvious.
If you want to refute that, how about you provide actual numbers? I have. I've linked charts (in the previous thread that spun this one anyway). I've shown numbers. I've pointed out the patterns I see. How about you at least look at the things you linked instead of just assuming that they support your assumptions?