Tuesday, March 05, 2013

Look for the tells, he can't bluff!




BULLY BOY PRESS &   CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

KILLER BARRY O HAS NO POKER FACE.

IF HE HAD ONE BEFORE YESTERDAY, IT'S BEEN STRIPPED AWAY.

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN STATED REPEATEDLY YESTERDAY THAT BARRY O DOES NOT BLUFF.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, KILLER BARRY TOLD THESE REPORTERS THIS MORNING, "DAMN IT, JOE!  DAMN IT!  HE KNEW I WAS GOING ON CELEBRITY POKER SHOWDOWN NEXT MONTH!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Yesterday at Third, we addressed the gross stupidity (or laid back lying) of Reuters which published stenography.  136 Iraqis died in Iraq last month said the Iraqi government ministries.  Reuters could have kept their own count but that would require work.  They could have compared the official count to Iraq Body Count but that would have required thought.  So they just spat out what they were handed and pretended that was reporting.


February 3rd, Sofia News Agency at least 30 dead.  February 4th, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported 23 dead,  February 8, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported at least 26 dead. February 16th, we noted 18 dead. February 17th, AP reported at least 37 dead.  February 28th, AP reported at least 22 dead.  Now forget that, for example, the 37 dead February 17th were just from Baghdad bombs and that, as Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) in real time, the actual death toll from violence that day was 52 and forget other big days of violence (February 16th, we noted 18 dead).  Just go with those figures: 30, 23, 26, 18, 37 and 22.  That's 138 deaths.  (Check my math always.)  From just *six* days.  And that's 2 deaths more than the official figures say.


Grasp that no major skill was required to reveal the ministry figures as fraudulent.  So is Reuters too dumb, too lazy, or are they in on the con?



Through Wednesday, February 27th, Iraq Body Count counts 316 deaths.  Which means, despite claims to the contrary there was no reduction in violence.  As we noted above, the Associated Press reported 22 dead on Feburary 28th.  Add 22 to 316 and you have 338.  The reality is when Iraq Body Count updates, it will probably have more than 22 deaths (they're not Baghdad-centric which is why they're able to report deaths across Iraq).  But let's say they just go with 22.  That would be 338.  As noted in the February 1st snapshot, IBC's toll for January was 341.

So we're talking a death toll that remained the same.  For the very slow -- which may include Reuters -- that would be 338 deaths over 28 days.  There were 31 days in January.  Even setting aside that IBC will probably list more than 22 deaths, it's the same basic number.

Other measures?  We can't use the AFP count.  Prashant Rao is out of Iraq currently and is apparently the only one who fills in the spreadsheet.  We can use AKE's figures via their own John Drake.




At least 45 people were killed and 191 injured in violence last week.

Expand

Feb 25

At least 56 people were killed and 108 injured in violence last week.

Expand



Feb 18

At least 65 people were killed and 145 injured in violence last week.

Expand


Feb 11

At least 98 people were killed and 265 injured in violence last week.

Expand


Feb 5

At least 54 people were killed and 141 injured in violence last week.

Expand


So for that period of time, AKE's counting 318 deaths and 850 injured.

Does Reuters really want to stand with the Iraqi government and claim there were only 136 deaths took place?

Repeating, February saw no reduction in violence despite the government claims that Reuters echoed without skepticism, question or common sense.

Let's stay with bad press as the topic.  The New York Times headlines their piece "Massacre of Syrian Soldiers in Iraq Raises Risk of Widening Conflict."   Widening conflict?  Dahsiell Bennett (The Atlantic) toes that White House line as well:

As has been feared for months, violence from the Syrian civil war has spilled across the border into Iraq, threatening an already unstable balance of power in the neighboring country. A group of Syrian soliders were ambushed and killed inside Iraqi territory on Monday, raising concerns that the violent conflicts in both countries could somehow merge.


Reality, fighting is taking place in Syria.  Two sides, the Syrian military, the US-backed 'rebels.'  In this case, the Syrian military ran into Iraq.  It doesn't really matter whether it's the military or the so-called 'rebels.'  When you holler "Tag! You're it!" as you run to base, the other side's going to follow you.  In this case, they appear to have gotten sympathizers with the 'rebels' to attack.  It doesn't matter.


When you cross borders in the midst of the war, that's what can enlarge a battle field, not a massacre after you've crossed over.  Nouri's made the decision to back President Bashar Assad's government.  This morning, for example, Nouri (or his office) Tweets today about posting a new photo to his Facebook page -- a new photo of Bashar Assad. He's made the decision that Iraq will provide harbor.  When you do that, you expand the conflict.  The attack didn't expand it.  The attack is in response to Nouri expanding the conflict by providing a harbor for the Syrian military.

Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) quotes Nouri's 'adviser' Ali al-Mussawi stating, "From the beginning, we have warned that some militant groups want to move the conflict in Syria to Iraq."  al-Mussawi gets closer to reality when the AP quotes him, "We do not want more soldiers to cross our borders and we do not want to be part of the problem."  Then stop allowing fleeing sides in the combat to cross into your country.

RECOMMENDED:



Posted by at

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Hello. [url=http://blue-pil.com/en/item/generic_lipitor.html]order lipitor[/url] get this deals [url=http://ph-pills.com/en/item/generic_alli.html]diet pills[/url]

12:43 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)