Presidential spokesperson Scott McLellan is at it again misleading people by playing fast and loose with the numbers. From yesterday's press briefing:
MR. McCLELLAN: ...[T]he leaders of al Qaeda and others are on the run. We've already brought to justice some three-quarters of the al Qaeda leadership. And we are not going to let up. We are taking the fight to the enemy. We are continuing to pursue them, wherever they are. And we will bring them to justice, and we will win in this war on terrorism.
So we'll just snatch up the last 25% of al Qaeda leadership and there'll be no more terrorists, right? I guess terrorists, unlike every other organization in the world, do not fill open positions.
And isn't he sounding more Orwellian than usual?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think that Bin Laden's latest missives show that we are in fact winning. I also disagree with the notion that they are all just replaceable parts. Military leaders throughout the world always target leadership first, as it is demoralizing to the troops. Steve seems hell-bent on criticizing any move or word from the administration, leaving those of us who are ambivilent to occasionally defend. TIME magazine, which is notoriously liberal, had an interesting article, which seems to support the notion we are making progress, and in fact makes light of the fact that Bin Laden is siding with all the doves. That should make them feel good.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10966809/site/newsweek/page/2/
Guilty as charged. I'll continue to criticize presidential mendacity, hypocrisy and the taking of rhetorical liberties.
Where you have a point is that I should be a little more equitable in the distribution of disdain.
But politics is burning me out. I think I'm going to go back to my first passion and turn this blog into a site devoted exclusively to Lord of the Rings discussion. Kudos to anyone that posts in Elvish.
Steve, what's your point in your first comment? Your criticism of McClellan's statement just makes you sound like a partisan shooting spit-wads. First, some radical Muslim's will certainly fill in for others, but that's no reason not to conduct war on them. Secondly, the White House has habitually UNDERSTATED the progress so as to protect themselves from accusations such as yours. Bush used the number of 30,000 killed in a recent speech. It's more like 50,000 in reality according to scores of soldiers who have expressed dismay at the way our media has misrepresented the situation. These soldiers, by the way, also generally hate the imbedded reporters, and know that the regular Iraqi people dread the prospect of us leaving.
The point is to shine some light on some bullshit. His number is insignificant. If I was filling up a bucket with water, but the bucket had a hole in it, what good is it for me to say it's 75% full?
In the rest of your post, you seem to be talking about Iraq. I was talking about McClellan's comments about Al Qaeda. Two different things that are often conflated. I think your number killed was Iraqis not Al Qaeda.
As for Iraq, as I've said many times I fully support staying and think the president's current course of action is correct.
No, you are saying that HE is saying Al Queda represents all terrorism. He was talking about the Al Queda network was he not? Did he say that he would be getting rid of terrorism? The Al Queda terror network was the best organized and well funded terror network. Getting rid of it is surely a plus, wouldn't you agree? Would it get rid of ALL terrorism? of course not! That can never be done.
My heartburn with McClellan was purely semantic. He's thrown out this 75% with the transparent purpose that readers/listeners use it inferentially (we killed 75% therefore I should infer that we're doing good). That's rhetorically and mathematically irresponsible. I hope we are doing good killing those bastards, but I tend to doubt it because he's misleading me with statistics. I don't trust people that mislead me.
As for your other questions...yes, getting rid of terrorism is a good thing (although not politically good for the GOP).
Post a Comment