Does anyone still follow that war in Iraq?

[Black Landlord]

How completely it's faded from public awareness . . .
Well, it's obviously not because things are going well.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27867443

[Acer]

Define "not going well." If bad news sells, I might say that the relative lack of bad news explains how our attention slips.

Here's something that says it's going better than it was, at least:



A see an overall drop in the casualty rate there in the last year, at least slipping below the trend line. Not gone entirely, and no comfort if your loved one was lost, of course, but better.

[Black Landlord]

So, if we leave the country in a permanent state of civil war with other countries lining up to supply one side or the other with arms, that's OK as long as we get a dip in US casualties every few months?

[NeverMind]

actually, the red line tells us that there is a positive relationship between time and number of deaths. Statistically, as months increase by one, deaths increase.

Don't look at it as individual months. The line is almost flat and could even go negative, but that isn't the case.

Also, those numbers seem to be from 2003-2007. It is a partial picture.

[Mac1337]

Reporters couldn't wait to race to the scene of the latest IED and show the obligatory Hummer on fire. Iraqi Kurdistan is the biggest success story and yet I haven't seen a single report from there. I ams sure there are people who would have loved to see another helicopter lifting off the roof of the last building in the Green Zone.

[simonm]

I wonder what a graph for dead Iraqis would look like?

[swampy]

Harry Reid said the war was lost so the partisan press left Iraq for a better story. It's called "follow the liar".

[Acer]

Source of the chart I posted:
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html


He does not label the years on the x-axis on this chart, but the other chart on the same web page is labeled as current to 2008, so i presume this one is, as well. It matches other charts I saw when looking for this one, as in, a bad 2006-2007, but slowing down in the last year.

[mikeylikesit]

The invasion was a mistake that both political parties had a hand in effecting, none so much as the Republicans. It's now a quagmire that no one has an answer to or exit strategy for.

The current economic meltdown could probably provide enough political cover for us to withdraw and let the chips fall where they may. The incumbents are doing nothing about anything beside finding safe havens for their political stooges and laying land mines for the incoming administration to overcome.

As difficult as times are now the current administration seems hell bent on making them worse with the intent of hobbling the incoming administrations ability to hit the floor running.

Partisans for eight-years and partisans to the end, we won't miss them once they are gone but it may take a while to flush them back into the sewers that spawned them.

edit: because my enter button should not be on my keyboard but somewhere else in the room.

[swampy]

Mickey...

One of your liberals wants to just do away with the Constitution and induct Obama tomorrow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/opinio....html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

"Putting Barack Obama in charge immediately isn’t impossible. Dick Cheney, obviously, would have to quit as well as Bush. In fact, just to be on the safe side, the vice president ought to turn in his resignation first. (We’re desperate, but not crazy.) Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would become president until Jan. 20. Obviously, she’d defer to her party’s incoming chief executive, and Barack Obama could begin governing."