OxBlog

Thursday, October 18, 2007

# Posted 9:43 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

MOVEON.ORG VERSUS THE FACTS: I've heard a lot of people say that if you ignore the words "General Betray Us", there was nothing really wrong with MoveOn.org's infamous ad. Not so says the NYT's public editor:
On the morning that Petraeus testified, The Times published that MoveOn.org ad with the ''General Betray Us'' headline. Without distinguishing between an opinion piece and a news report, the ad said that, ''according to The New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, car bombs don't count. The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head -- not the front.''

After a week of looking into these conflicting reports, interviewing government officials, policy experts and keepers of independent databases on Iraq, here is what I have found:

Back-of-the-head, front-of-the-head is not a distinction the military uses to count victims of sectarian violence. The military's manual for measuring sectarian violence, declassified the day after Krugman's column ran, says that civilians ''shot anywhere in the head'' are counted. On Sept. 25, in a detailed account of how the military counts victims of sectarian violence, The Post quoted an Army chief warrant officer as saying that ''a single shot to the head'' is a sign of sectarian violence.

Car bombings do count. The unclassified manual, ''MNF-I Ethno-Sectarian Violence Methodology,'' says car bombings at such places as mosques or markets are to be counted. Civilians killed in car bombings not deemed sectarian, like an attack on a U.S. convoy, are still counted in the overall casualty numbers.
But really, what's wrong with using rumors and imaginary facts to serve the noble purpose of ending this terrible war?

Labels:

(15) opinions -- Add your opinion

Comments:
what's wrong with using rumors and imaginary facts to serve the noble purpose of ending this terrible war?

David, did the liars feels the shame so they would like a” noble purpose of ending this terrible war? That “terrible war” built on hoax and piles of lies?
 
Oh David! You're so right, yet again.
 
http://thisnovember5th.com/
 
Instalanche! Run for your lives!
 
Does the end justify every means?

Or, does the end justify some means and not others?

Or, does the end never justify the means?
 
6But really, what's wrong with using rumors and imaginary facts to serve the noble purpose of ending this terrible war?

Because, buddy, taking this approach will commence the merry dance down to the road to Perdition. Ultimately no one, and nothing--not even you--will be beyond the reach of "fake, but accurate."

Down in the Ninth Circle of Hell, Goebbels laughs and cheers you on.
 
I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic...
 
[But really, what's wrong with using rumors and imaginary facts to serve the noble purpose of ending this terrible war?]

The examples of execution methods and car bombs are Iraqi on Iraqi violence. What makes you believe that if only the US left Iraq, the country would be at peace?

Or would logic dictate that the violence would only intensify, as it did in Southeast Asia, consuming millions of lives after the Democrats in Congress refused to resupply South Vietnam in '75.

There are real live bad guys in the world, and I see no reason to accept the idea that it's us.

DA
 
TO: David Adesnik, et al.
RE: All Lies & Jest

"....what's wrong with using rumors and imaginary facts to serve the noble purpose of ending this terrible war?" -- David Adesnik, on MoveOn approach to dealing with the truth

Ends. Means. You know the rest....

And everytime someone uses this approach, the truth of a matter is thrown out with the proverbial 'bath water'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You cannot be faithful in the big things if you are not faithful in the little ones. -- Captain Sheridan, Babylon 5]
 
what's wrong with using rumors and imaginary facts to serve the noble purpose of ending this terrible war?

Let's rephrase: "What's wrong with using rumors and imaginary facts to serve our political ends?" Because ending the war is a political end--it means lying is a reasonable means to a political goal.

If this is the measure of liberalism, liberalism is fucked.
 
"But really, what's wrong with using rumors and imaginary facts to serve the noble purpose of ending this terrible war?"

You are joking, right?

If all the opposition to the war is based on rumors and lies, then maybe the war itself is noble, and the opposition is trying to help the terrorists.

Gen. Petraus told the truth, Hillary lied.
 
It's the narrative, baby.
 
One hopes that last sentence is a joke...it seems too froth-at-the-mouth for someone who actually took the time to check the numbers and statistics.

it's relieving to know that I can use this article to counter all those liberal idiots out there who think that we actually fudge the numbers this way.
 
A lot of people seem to have missed the sarcasm embedded in the last line of my post (even though drhenious very capably pointed it out after the first bit of confusion.

So to clarify, yes, it was sarcasm. If you don't believe me, please visit OxBlog more regularly or scroll through archives to get a sense both of my opinions about Iraq and about the importance of integrity.
 
Thanks for writing this blog. it's great blog.
...................................
 
Post a Comment


Home