"Today" newsreader Ann Curry managed to work a snide and not-so-subtle shot at President Bush into her news recap this morning.
ANN CURRY: The U.S. military is reporting that seven U.S. troops were killed on Thursday, four Marines in fighting in Anbar Province, where President Bush hailed gains in security this week, and three soldiers who died in a roadside bombing in northern Iraq. Their deaths bring the U.S. toll to 3,750 since the war began.
Yes, Ann, the war is not over in al-Anbar and elsewhere in Iraq. Marines and other members of our military continue to make heroic sacrifices. That they do should be honored, not exploited as a means of taking a potshot at the Commander-in-Chief.
And by the way, Ms. Curry. It's not just Pres. Bush who has "hailed gains" in Anbar. People from Dick Durbin, to Hillary Clinton, to your old "Today" chum Katie Couric have acknowledged that fact.
Mark was in al-Anbar in November.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Ann, how many people were
September 7, 2007 - 07:56 ET by drillanwrAnn, how many people were murdered in New York City on Thursday? How many in L.A.? How about in D.C.? And how many police officers were killed in the US on Thursday?
Just asking ...
New Orleans Murder Rate Higher than Iraq
September 7, 2007 - 08:33 ET by allanfThe murder rate in New Orleans may be higher than the violent death rate in Iraq. This calculation is based in part on statisitcs from CNN
Iraq officially reported 16,273 violent deaths in Iraq last year (see http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-01/02/content_773253.htm ). AP had a lower figure of about 15000. (I'm aware of the Lancet report and other studies. Frankly I don't trust them. Lancet figures indicate about 700 deaths a day. That does not jive with field reporting) From
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html
can see that the population of Iraq was
27,499,638 (July 2007 est.)
As at
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/28/murder.board.nola/index.html
can see that now the estimate of the murder rate in New Orleans is 70 per year per 100,000 population.
So, if peace could come to Iraq and the violence level could come down to that of a US city, e.g., New Orleans, then the number of people that would die from murders in a year in Iraq from sectarian violence, revenge killings, al Quada terrorism, Sunni-Shiite fights over territory, criminal gangs, etc. would be
70 * ( 27,499,638 / 100,000 ) = 19,250
Hmm ...!
Not to pick bones with the
September 7, 2007 - 09:00 ET by Chidi NwachukhuNot to pick bones with the numbers, but the gov't numbers do not include the 100's of assorted headless and otherwise maimed dead bodies that turn up on the streets every month. That being said, there is no way i would ever go the New Orleans anyway.
Sorry, a dead body is still
September 7, 2007 - 09:27 ET by BDSorry, a dead body is still a dead body and is counted.
On page 94 of its report,
September 7, 2007 - 10:12 ET by Chidi NwachukhuOn page 94 of its report, the Iraq Study Group found that there had been "significant under-reporting of the violence in Iraq." The reason, the group said, was because the tracking system was designed in a way that minimized the deaths of Iraqis.
A roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count.
The ISG report said that U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence on one day in July. "Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light more than 1,100 acts of violence," it said.
Oh, you mean that old "Iraq Surrender Group" paper?
September 7, 2007 - 10:29 ET by RJThe one written by the Surrender Monkeys and criticized by many Iraqis?
In any event, it's irrelevant to current events in Iraq.
ISG Report
September 7, 2007 - 10:51 ET by allanfThe ISG wrote:
It has been my understanding that the DOD assiduoulsy tracks incidents of violence against US Military personnel. Those statistics are reported on DOD websites. The command structure needs reliable numbers to track patterns and deploy troops.
The task of tracking Iraqi and Iraqi violence however is properly left to the Iraqi government. This recommendation is a very poor suggestion. The Iraqi government is better situated to track Iraqi on Iraqi violence.
Thank you for your cut and
September 7, 2007 - 10:50 ET by stratmanThank you for your cut and paste without referencing. (I'm sure you could also find this on Leftist blog sites as well.)
The official ISG report is 84 pages. The data you cite is on page 62 along with a recommendation for improved reporting of violence.
Cherry picking the largest purported discrepancy from over a year ago may not be representative of today. Additionally, not all violence is related to the US presence in Iraq. As much as you might want to blame the US for everything bad that happens in the world, we are not responsible for all malbehaviour.
Do you have any proof that underreporting is practiced widespread or mainstream currently? Also, please define what should constitute acts as recordable.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Under Reporting
September 7, 2007 - 11:06 ET by allanfYou may have misunderstood my point.
DoD does not under report acts of violence against US Military Personnel. These incidents are carefully tracked and studied. Acts of violence against US Personnel numbered about 100 per day when the report was written. DoD needs accurate figures for force protection. It has no motivation to mis-state the numbers.
DoD does not track Iraqi on Iraqi violence. It is not DoDs mission to track Iraqi on Iraqi violence. The recommendaiton from the ISG report quoted above is just silly. Iraqi on Iraqi violence is best tracked by the Iraqi Government.
The Iraqi government came up with the 16,000 dead figure for 2006. I see little reason to doubt its accuracy
The casualty count process
September 7, 2007 - 14:44 ET by BDThe casualty count process is actually PRONE to overcount in my experience (Two Iraq tours).
This occurs in virutally ALL third world locations because the counters enter a village to investigate the reports of an IED in a market place filled with shoppers. They begin asking the people how many people were killed and all of them begin relating the people they knew who were affected and then this number is added together regardless of the fact that many people are self-reporting identical personnel. (like people referring to cousin Al, Uncle Alf, freind Fredo, and Alfred all being the same dead guy)
Another reason why this is common is that in the thrid world, accuracy in reporting such data is not highly prized. Good example is to be found in P J O'Roukes book "Holidays in Hell" in which he relates how he investigted a firefight with the New Peoples Army by the AFP in which the press had reported forty or fifty NPA casualties.
When O'Rouke investigated it and asked the folks involved from the AFP what had happened, it seems all the enemy casualties were contained in a single WWII vintage jeep, and that there was actually little sign of a battle damage to the either the jeep or the building that supposedly held out under withering fire for several hours. More likely, a jeep pulled up and the two occupants walked in on the AFP and stole something prior to leaving and thus a highly imaginative story is created.
I can vouch for the fact that Truth in the third world is AMAZINGLY flexible
Based on these links and
September 7, 2007 - 09:09 ET by Senior ChiefBased on these links and figures, where the heck did Tim Robbins, Jane Fonda and that fat-lesbian-loud-mouth Rosie got their figure of 400,000 from? Just wondering...
By the way, last night's 5-6 PM news alone in our place of less than 1 mil population, four people have died- that was only during the day...
Chief: Facts are
September 7, 2007 - 09:29 ET by BDChief:
Facts are unimportant for liberals, only desires. This is due ot the fact that while conservatism is based on analysis, liberalism is based on solely on emotion.
THerefore, the liberals WANT to belive a higher casualty number regardless of how farcical it is.
Figures
September 7, 2007 - 09:49 ET by allanfThe Iraqi government figures mean about 50 violent deaths a day. That figure is consistent with the Iraq Body Count web site, and AP reporting.
UN figures were dramatically higher for 2006. I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't bring myself to view the UN as reliable in anything.
Nothing seems to valididate the Lancet claims or the claims of Hollywood leftests of 400,000 to 600,000 dead in four years.
For calculation purposes, I see no reason not to rely in the Iraqi government figures.
People from Dick Durbin, to
September 7, 2007 - 08:02 ET by motherbeltPeople from Dick Durbin, to Hillary Clinton, to your old "Today" chum Katie Couric have acknowledged that fact.
What the H. Don't let the fact that liberals agree with him get in the way of a good potshot at the President. It's probable that neither of the two people listening to you know that.
Yeah, I caught that...
September 7, 2007 - 08:28 ET by ksimm81I was watching this morning and I actually snickered when she said that. The liberal media is so transparent....it's amazing why most liberals deny it.
Apparently one of the requirements for news anchor
September 7, 2007 - 08:40 ET by c5thenin the MSM is that you have to be a BI*CH.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Ms Saccharine
September 7, 2007 - 08:46 ET by allanfFor some reason, Curry strikes me as the quintessential phony. Perhaps it is her sub vocalizing of homilies while she reads the nose. "Terrible story". "Tragic". Well thanks Ann.
Newsubstes readers may get a laugh from this New York Daily News puff piece about Curry. According to the piece Ann, would much rather visit Afghanistan, Iraq or Darfur than interview Paris Hilton. All this from the woman who swooned when she said "Up next a gourmet picnic in Today's Kitchen but first this is today on NBC. We just talked to Helen Reddy!”
Well we have to give Ann some slack. Her gushing interview with Trudy and Sting showed that she is concerned about Global Warming. I’ve always viewed Ann as a vacuous, hyperventilating celebrity junkie. She loves nothing better than a celebrity pushing a cause..
Nothing she has said on the Today Show gives any indication that she has ever thought deeply about an issue. Rather she seems to seek approval by getting behind popular causes. She certainly does not have the moxie of an Ollie North or even a Lara Logan of CBS. It is a shame she tried to posture.
Apparently some of Ann’s neighbors don’t by into her saccharine sweetness. She was sued by neighbors in 2006 over construction disturbances during the renovation of her home. Dr. John Lee and Dr. Lynn Lummel claimed workmen renovating Curry’s home punched holes in their chimney causing their house to be filled with soot. Another complainant in the lawsuit, Roseanne O’Brien claims she gave up her apartment of 25 years because of noise from the construction.
Curry’s reaction was that she was being exploited by neighbors who were just out to get her money.
"Rather she seems to seek
September 7, 2007 - 10:18 ET by stratman"Rather she seems to seek approval by getting behind popular causes."
You hit the proverbial nail on the head.
I liked Curry when she was a fill-in newsreader and appeared to not editorialize on stories. Now that she's made the move to the vaunted couch, Curry has become more sycophantic and saccharin as the day's progress. She strikes me as the kind of person that would pull a "Katie Curic", who had a colonoscopy on air, by having a Pap and Pelvic on air if the boss would let her. Eww!
Even my mother, a liberal, finds her phoney now and changes the channel when Curry begins her emoting. While there is little hope for Curry, there is some remaining for Mom.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
BRIAN ROSS?!?!?!?!?!
September 7, 2007 - 12:44 ET by Mr. KafirWell, she obviously has very high standards.
It's not her fault.
September 7, 2007 - 08:58 ET by walkAnn Curry truly is a "newsreader". She couldn't come up with an original thought to save her life.
She's at the top of the pyramid when it comes to media morons.
What is really disgusting
September 7, 2007 - 09:04 ET by Conservative_in_mass.What is really disgusting about Curry is that she seems to be satisfied that seven of our brave people died at the "right" time to make our President look bad.
This behavior borders on treason. Despicable, all of them.
Media Casualties
September 7, 2007 - 09:16 ET by Six String SpiffI can't wait to start the 'body count' if you will of the MSM when their monopoly falls. The monolith of Anti-Americanism divided and conquered by the new media. The media that will do the job that the MSM was supposed to do: Report the facts, only. NewsBusters are this century's minute men. Following the MSM whereever they go and cutting them down whilst they march for our enemies. Yes, let the fight begin.
The American Revolution Continued
Ann, the liberal
September 7, 2007 - 10:06 ET by iveseenitallAnn Curry, and most liberals, want the U.S. to lose in Iraq. Look at the Dimo comments already beginning concerning the General's report, which will not even be delivered until next week. Sad.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Ann who?
September 7, 2007 - 09:58 ET by geminicontenderSorry to hear these people are still preaching to the losers in our society. NBC's byline must read something like Nothing But Conspiracy.
Ann Curry... The Enemy
September 7, 2007 - 10:10 ET by bigtimerAnn Curry...
The Enemy Within.
sidebar
September 7, 2007 - 16:42 ET by CatherwoodThere are 214 workers employed where I work. I can't find one who watches the Today show in the morning. I would say half of them are liberals, dims and members of a union. Point is peop[le just don't listen to the net news anymore. All know that the news emanating from the nets is all so biased it's not worth watching. I do know of one supervisor who watches CNN, the cable/satellite bastard son of the nets. (She's an obsessive/compulsive freak whom everybody avoids.)
Catherwood... Sounds like
September 7, 2007 - 16:48 ET by bigtimerCatherwood...
Sounds like excellent NEWS to me!
Where are these leftist shows getting their ratings and how do they survive?
Oooops forgot...matters not to them...
Agenda agenda agenda.
You would think this cannot continue forever though.
According to the latest
September 8, 2007 - 07:46 ET by Mark FinkelsteinAccording to the latest ratings, "Today" continues to be watched by a daily average of 4.9 million people.