In the public e-mail account, visitors (War Hawks) have worked themselves into a tizzy over the "62" deaths and how that's not being noted! It's unfair, it's dishonest!
They're full of crap.
Yesterday, in the morning entry and the snapshot the 62 claim was noted, as was the 71 AFP is reporting. The downward trend was noted in the Friday snapshot. And 62 was no longer the number by yesterday morning.
Repeating for the very slow or willfully stupid, M-NF has a long term pattern of announcing deaths late after idiots rush out their first day of the month look back on the previous month. M-NF also made September -- more than any month before -- about not announcing deaths. M-NF is supposed to announce the deaths. After the families have been informed, DoD announces the names. In September, you repeatedly saw (if you paid attention), DoD provide the names to deaths that M-NF never announced.
ICCC currently lists the September death toll as? 66. Click on the most recent announcements and you'll see that the press releases were issued October 2nd.
This is not a new development that began this month, this has taken place repeatedly since the illegal war began.
It has been and remains a waste of time for press outlets to run with their first day of the month reports. They do not later issue corrections -- after their stories have run and more deaths for the previous month have been announced. Repeatedly, month after month, those who depend solely on a daily paper to track the deaths are left with an undercount.
Equally stupid is the type of article PvZ contributes in the New York Times this morning: Violence is down! The paper refuses to track violence (just as they refuse to track the death announcements) themselves. In a few days, McClatchy Newspapers will have their story out about their own tracking of the violence. That will have weight and will be noted (whether the violence is down, up or stayed the same).
On McClatchy, we will not be noting their combat deaths versus 'other' deaths of US service members unless/until they begin exploring the 'other'. In some, but not all, cases it may be suicide. In some, but not all, it may be accidents. If you're going to crunch the numbers then you really need to be tracking the 'other' and also determing how many times -- after M-NF and DoD announce the events are "under investigation" -- the reasons for the death were made public. When the total number for US service members killed in Vietnam is noted, there is not this push to note "combat deaths" -- excuse me, to note "combat deaths" only.
Covering "combat" deaths and not noting the cause of the other deaths is insulting. Futhermore, I've yet to see any report on the deaths that includes the death in the US of a service member wounded in Iraq who hung on for two years but died last months from the wounds. We noted it here. It's not in this month's count. He died from the wounds received but apparently that's not a "combat death" for the month since the wounds were received two years ago and it's not a death that fits into the tidy, breezy coverage. (He is not the first to die from wounds received after being taken out of Iraq.)
For those who need their lies and distortions, Clarence Thomas has published a creative piece of fiction. See Wally's "THIS JUST IN! PRESS SUCKS UP TO CLARANCE THOMAS!" and Cedric's "Clarence the Cross-Eyed Injustice" from yesterday and today you can check out Anita Hill's "The Smear This Time" in this morning's New York Times:
I stand by my testimony.
Justice Thomas has every right to present himself as he wishes in his new memoir, "My Grandfather's Son." He may even be entitled to feel abused by the confirmation process that led to his appointment to the Supreme Court.
But I will not stand by silently and allow him, in his anger, to reinvent me.
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.
the daily jot
cedrics big mix