THE POST'S STATISTICAL SCANDAL ON IRAQI FATALITIES

Leo Rennert does it again with another important analysis ...........

HOW THE WASHINGTON POST SKEWS STATISTICS ABOUT BOTH IRAQ AND ISRAEL


Since the start of the Palestinian intifada, the Post has misled its readers by steadfastly refusing to break down fatality figures between combatants and non-combatants -- between terrorists and innocent bystanders.

Now, the Post is committing a similar grievous error and misleading readers with regard to casualties in Iraq. In the run-up to the election, the Post has published statistical boxes summarizing Iraq casualties. These in turn are broken down between U.S. military casualties, allied military fatalities, U.S. civilian fatalities and grossly misleading counts of "Iraqi Civilian Fatalities."

What does the Post mean by "Iraqi Civilian Fatalities" (It gives the latest totals as falling between 14,181 and 16,312)? If you were think that these were Iraqi bystanders killed in operations by the U,S,-led coalition -- a quite natural impression -- you'd be absolutely wrong. In a small-type footnote, the Post cites as its source a private British web site, www.Iraqbodycount.net, which The Post says compiles civilian deaths "due to war-related events." To buttress the reliability of this web site, the Post notes that it bases its count on no fewer than 40 media sources. Sounds impressive -- until you pull up the web site.

What you find is that this British group doesn't confine itself at all to civilian victims of coalition fire. Included in its total of "Iraqi civilian fatalities" are all the insurgents and terrorists killed in encounters with coalition forces. Check the data base and you will find listed as "civilian" fatalities terrorists at a "suspected al-Zarqawi checkpoint," at a "suspected al-Zarqawi safehouse," at a "suspected meeting place for al-Zarqawi supporters," etc. All these insurgents and terrorist are just "civilians." In fact what this British group does is to include in its total count of Iraqi "civilian fatalities" anyone who wasn't wearing the uniform of Saddam's army. No matter that he's firing RPGs or slicing somebody's throat.

The second highly misleading aspect of the British group's figures is that while they identify location, target and weapons in fatal incidents, they fail to provide any breakdown totals between attackers -- where they coalition forces or terrorists/insurgents? So, while the gross totals garnered from all sorts of media sources may be fairly accurate, they don't tell the reader anything about whether the victims were really innocent civilians or combatants and similarly are silent on who actually pulled the trigger -- the coalition or insurgents/terrorists.

But wait there's more. In checking the data base back to July, I could not find a single instance of a fatality resulting from the beheading of foreigners by terrorists. Shouldn't they be included among "Iraq Casualties"? The British group says it weeps for all civilians killed but somehow overlooks the most brutal killings of all. Perhaps because the British group just wants to bestow its sympathy on Iraqi victims and these are non-Iraqi victims. But whatever the reason for this gross omission, shouldn't the Post provide a total of beheaded victims since the British group evidently does not?

So how does this British source justify its methodology to inflate "civilian" deaths with terrorist fatalities? The answer: With some contorted legalisms and a far-left ideology. It declares that its "civilian" count includes all "deaths resulting from a breakdown in law and order" and puts the entire blame on the U.S. and the U.K. These are all "civilian deaths attributed to our military intervention in Iraq," it declares, thereby exculpating al-Zarqawi and indicting George Bush and Tony Blair. Or, in another one of its formulations, these are "all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva conventions and Hague regulations." The terrorists get a free pass.

Its methodology is steeped anti-war ideology (that is, when the U.S. and the U.K. go to war -- not the other guys). For example, it argues that 13,000 "civilians" have been killed since 9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq, compared with only 3,375 killed in "paramilitary attacks in Western targets" -- a 4-1 disproportionate ratio that compounds U.S.-British sins. The British group uses "terrorist" only in quotation marks and, as you can see, prefers the more sanitized "paramilitary" euphemism.

In case you still have doubts about its obvious political objectives, the web site strongly condemns virtually all major U.S. political figures -- from Howard Dean to George Bush. Looking over the pre-nomination field earlier this year, it declared that "apart from Denis Kucinich, every White House contender is a willing, unforced colluder with the official downgrading and dismissal of Iraqi deaths."

What makes the Post's ready reliance on the statistics of this highly political group all the more sad and ironic is that the Post has turned thumbs down on figures of a respected think tank, the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, which breaks down combatant/non-combatant fatality statistics since the start of the intifada.

So while the Post's editor assures readers that there is a total wall of separation between the editorial page and the news pages, he totally overlooks the fact that his news editors have their own political agenda and skew statistics about deaths in Iraq, Israel and Palestinian territories so that the role of terrorists is neatly hidden from readers' eyes.

LEO RENNERT

POST EARNS PRO-PALESTINIAN STARS

Friend of blog, Leo Rennert rates comPost propaganda ...gives three stars.

A WASHINGTON POST REPORTER EARNS THREE PRO-PALESTINIAN STARS IN A SINGLE STORY

John Ward Anderson's Oct. 25 report from Jerusalem deserves at least three stars for its pro-Palestinian slant. Let Leo enumerate:

1. Anderson writes that, as the Knesset opened debate on Sharon's Gaza disengagement plan, "16 Palestinians were killed and almost 100 wounded by the Israeli military in the Southern Gaza Strip town of Khan Younis." No further details about the casualties. According to Haaretz, a left-wing, anti-Sharon newspaper, 11 of the 16 were armed men, according to Palestinian sources. In failing, as usual, to distinguished between combatant and non-combatant casualties, the Post leaves the impression that Israeli attacks are directed at Palestinians in general -- something Palestinian propagandists would like the world to believe, but something that is demonstrably untrue. Haaretz also reported, based on Palestinian figures, that there were 60 wounded -- not 100. But rounding it to 100 makes a more dramatic impact. So why not?

2. In the same paragraph, Anderson earns his second pro-Palestinian star. Having given the Palestinians a new reason for grievance with the operation in Khan Younis, he goes on to quote an Israeli spokeswoman as saying that the attack responded to the firing of more than 28 mortar shells at Jewish settlements. Fair enough. So up to this point, we have Palestinians attacked by Israelis and Israelis attacked by Palestinians. But Anderson isn't content to leave it at that. So he adds that those Palestinian mortar attacks were in retaliation for Israel's killing of a top Hamas leaders a few days earlier. And then he stops. But having reported three different attacks, why not go to the fourth and tell readers why Israel assassinated this Hamas leader, whom the Post as usual does not identify as a terrorist? Why not mention how many Israelis died as a result of this Hamas leader's violent forays. No, to give his paragraph a distinct pro-Palestinian spin, Anderson tells readers about TWO ISRAELI ATTACKS BUT ONLY ONE PALESTINIAN ATTACK. So, in terms of suffering and grievances, Palestinians are given TWO BITES of the apple, and the Israelis only ONE. The sequence he describes starts and ends with Israeli attacks -- exactly the impression Palestinians seek to convey that they're the victims and the Israelis are the aggressors. Never mind that there would be no bloodshed on either side if the intifada came to a halt.

3. To earn his third pro-Palestinian star, Anderson ends his story by reporting that doctors had performed a diagnostic endoscopy on Arafat in his "battered Ramallah headquarters, where he has been confined by Israel for more than two years." And that's it. So here we have an ailing Arafat having to undergo a procedure in his devastated HQ. Another victim of those callous Israelis, one is meant to think. But, what Anderson conveniently omits, is that Israel earlier offered to let Arafat leave his headquarters and move to a Ramallah hospital so he could be treated in more satisfactory fashion, but that the offer was rejected by Arafat's own people! But if Anderson had mentioned that, Israel might have been seen by Post readers in a more positive light. And we can't have that. Incidentally, the New York Times devoted a separate story to Arafat's health problems, with prominent mention of Israel's offer at the top of its story.

THREE PRO-PALESTINIAN STARS FOR ONE STORY. NOT BAD. BUT NOT A POST RECORD EITHER.

LEO RENNERT

Rozenman rips Cohen...Terrorism Result of Oslo

The comPost published friend of the blog, Eric Rozenman's letter that rebuts the predictably inept reasoning of Richard Cohen....congratulations Eric.

Obstacles to Mideast Peace

Saturday, October 30, 2004; Page A17

In "Pro-Israel, but Pro-Peace?" [op-ed, Oct. 26], Richard Cohen writes that "from the signing of the Oslo accords in 1993 until September 2000, when the Camp David summit came to naught, about 256 Israelis -- civilians and soldiers alike -- were killed by Palestinian violence . . . . Between Sept. 29, 2000, and September 2004 -- four, not eight, years -- 1,026 Israelis were killed by Palestinians." He then argues that "those low fatality figures for the Clinton years were not entirely a coincidence. They were the product of hard [U.S. diplomatic] work." President Bush, Cohen says, has not been effective "in reducing the violence and bring[ing] about a peaceful solution."

In fact, the number of Israelis and foreigners murdered by Palestinian terrorists in Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip between 1993 and 2000 was not historically low but high. In the 15 years preceding Oslo, 216 Israeli civilians, security personnel and foreign visitors were murdered by Palestinian terrorists. Post-Oslo, the rate of deadly terrorism more than doubled.

The primary factor then as now was not who occupied the White House but rather the Palestinian violation of commitments to the peace process. After 1993, the Palestinian Authority trashed its pledges to end anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic incitement in schools, mosques, Palestinian Authority radio, television and newspapers; refused to eradicate the terrorist infrastructure; and would not educate its population for peaceful coexistence.

After 2000 and the Palestinian rejection of a West Bank and Gaza Strip state in exchange for peace with Israel, the death toll surged again. The problem is not finding American leaders committed to mediating Arab-Israeli peace but finding Palestinian leaders willing and able to make it.

-- Eric Rozenman

Washington

The writer is Washington director of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.

Post Stages Photo then Reports on Story.

From the comPost correction page via www.OpinionJournal.com

Check out the sixth item in today's Washington Post corrections column:

*** QUOTE ***

In the Oct. 17 Sunday Source, the "Gatherings" story described a Republican
barbecue held to watch a presidential debate. The item reported "the
possibly unprecedented occurrence of a young woman in a cowboy hat
pretending to make out with a poster of Dick Cheney." The item should have
explained that the woman was asked to pose with the vice president's picture
by the photographer working for The Washington Post. The woman also did not
pretend to "make out" with the picture; at the photographer's suggestion,
she pretended to blow a kiss at it. The item should have explained that the
party was hosted in response to a request from The Post, which discussed the
decorations and recipes with the host and agreed to reimburse the cost of
recipe ingredients.

*** END QUOTE ***

Now, we know what you're thinking, but c'mon--give the Post a break. Staging
an event and reporting on it at the same time is a lot of work, even for a
great journalistic institution like the Washington Post.

The correction, however, raises one additional question: Just what does it
mean to "pretend to blow a kiss"? Isn't a blown kiss a pretend one by
definition?

Riddle: What's different about comPost photographers staging a photo that puts Republicans in the worst light versus one that puts Israel in the worst light? They would never offer a correction for Israel.

Powerline Pastes Post

One of my favorite blogs, Powerline, dissects more comPost propaganda...this time propaganda for the Democrats.



If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em

The Washington Post reports that after a slow start, Republican 527's are now outspending their Democratic counterparts. Republicans initially tried to respect the spirit of the McCain-Feingold law, and when Democrats used the 527 device to pour tens of millions of dollars into shadow organizations that essentially reproduced the Democratic Party under other names, the Republicans complained to the FEC that the Democrats' practices were illegal.

When the FEC voted 4-2 to wait until after the election to rule of the 527 issue, Republican donors sprang into action, funding, in particular, Progress for America. The Post cites PFA and the Swift Boat Vets as the two leading Republican 527s, misunderstanding, as always, the motivation of, and the role played by, the Vets. And, as usual, the Post mentions only the first Swift Boat Vets ad, ritually denouncing it as unsubstantiated.

The Post gets one thing right, however: putting aside who has spent the most money, the anti-Kerry groups' ads have been more effective:

Not only have the two pro-Republican 527s, PFA and the Swift Boat Veterans, recently outraised the Democrats, but the ads run by PFA and the Swift Boat Veterans have also gained far more notoriety than any of the Democratic 527 ads.
Asked why the pro-GOP ads have had more impact than the pro-Democratic ads, Bill Galston, a Democratic public policy strategist, said he believes the Republicans have developed "messages that inherently have more leverage than others because they go at something that is at the heart of the campaign" -- in this case Kerry's use of his military record.

They [the Swift Boat Veterans and PFA] weren't going for a capillary, they were going for the jugular of the Kerry campaign," Galston said.

Another way of making the point would be to say that the ads run by the Vets and PFA have been efective because they are true.

Post Publishes Colleagues Letter

Hey, occasionally the Post shows integrity. The Post published a letter from friend of the blog, Leo.

Way to go Leo.

Unequivalent Intifada Tolls
Saturday, October 16, 2004; Page A21

In summing up the Palestinian intifada [news story, Oct. 5] your paper notes that 2,800 Palestinians and about 1,000 Israelis have been killed and that the Palestinian death toll now is rising much faster than Israel's. But such figures by themselves present a distorted picture because they fail to explain the far higher civilian casualty rate among Israelis because of the terrorist tactics of such groups as Hamas and Hezbollah.

For example, when two Israeli children are killed in Sderot by a Palestinian rocket, you count them as Israeli fatalities. When two suicide bombers blow themselves up in Beersheba, you add their deaths to the Palestinian toll, in effect equating the killing of preschoolers with the deaths of homicidal fanatics out to kill as many innocents as possible.

By using only gross fatality figures, your paper draws a moral equivalence between a culture that exalts suicide bombers as heroic martyrs and defensive measures against terrorism that seek to minimize civilian casualties.

-- Leo Rennert

Bethesda

Washington Times Discovers comPost headline is 'Almost All Wrong"

Here's the link to the Washington Times that find the Post to be Knaves...hey could we have said it better ourselves.

Knaves: A Washington Post headline writer, for employing a little "fake but accurate" journalism.
Thursday's Post front-page headline, which spanned four column lengths, read: "U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons." Here's the correction the Post ran yesterday, reprinted here since, unfortunately, corrections often go unnoticed:
"An Oct. 7 article and the lead Page One headline incorrectly attributed a quotation to Charles A. Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq. The statement, 'We were almost all wrong,' was made by Duelfer's predecessor, David Kay, at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Jan. 28."
For allowing bias to cloud judgment, the Post headline writer is the Knave of the week.

Do You Believe Certain Journalists Would Smear Pro Israel Public Officials - Mowbray Dissects comPost Smear Again

Mowbray deconstructs Sept 4 comPost article and discovers Wright is wrong again....asks why is State department correspondent writing about Pentagon, unless likely conduit for policy rivals smear.

Shows smear-journalism at its worst.....comPost source informs that the AIPAC-Pentagon smear started by asking "Do you believe certain people would spy for Israel and pass secret information?"

Why bother with evidence when you have beliefs and can insinuate.

Maybray shows that Post insinuates that prominent Pentagon Jews are being investigated when they are not.

"Reading the piece closely, none of the five is actually a target of any investigation. The actual language is: “Investigators have specifically asked about a group of neoconservatives involved in defense issues.”"


While the blogsphere exposed the CBS hoax, when will the world understand the malicious frauds at the Post?

The Washington Post and the Perfidious Jews
By Joel Mowbray
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 30, 2004


Doing the dirty work of careerists at the State Department and CIA, the Washington Post has used its respected platform to besmirch the names of both public and private figures at the Pentagon and tar them with the implication of harboring dual loyalties for Israel—or worse, that they possibly acted on those supposed impulses.

What did the five individuals named by the Post on September 4—who were a mix of low-level bureaucrats, high-ranking officials, and one former advisor on the Defense Policy Board—have in common? They were all Jews.

That’s not all. The Post piece further explains that all “have strong ties to Israel,” and that three of them were “co-authors of a 1996 policy paper for then-Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.” (Not mentioned was that the piece was neither commissioned nor funded nor sanctioned by Netanyahu or the Israeli government.)

Lest anyone still might not get that the five named Jews are possibly involved with dual loyalties to the Jewish state, the Post quoted “one source interviewed by the FBI about the defense officials” explaining the origins of the investigation: “‘The initial interest was: Do you believe certain people would spy for Israel and pass secret information?’”

What was the news value of such a story? It was supposedly a follow-up to previous recent stories about an actual FBI investigation into low-level Pentagon Iran analyst Larry Franklin, who is reportedly suspected of passing classified information to a pro-Israel U.S. lobbying group. But there was no story, at least not one with any news value.

Reading the piece closely, none of the five is actually a target of any investigation. The actual language is: “Investigators have specifically asked about a group of neoconservatives involved in defense issues.”

To a casual reader, however, such a distinction might not be apparent. Why else, after all, would a nationally esteemed news organization name names of low-level bureaucrats with no public profiles unless they had been convicted, indicted, or at least on the verge of one or the other?

An investigation alone is hardly newsworthy.

Buried nine paragraphs into the 1,100-word article is an insistence from “Pentagon officials” that the five named Jews were not “the subjects of the intelligence leak investigation.” The Post knew full well that they were not targets of any investigation, otherwise they would have written that they were.

It is hard to imagine that exclusion of an explicit statement that the men were not formally under investigation was a mere oversight. Rather, it appears part of a pattern in which the Post has advanced the political cause of careerists at the State Department and the CIA.

For all the media coverage of a divide between the Pentagon and the State Department—true to a certain extent—the real rift is between careerist diplomats and intelligence officials and the political appointees in the foreign policy team, the latter of which are largely based at the Pentagon, though a handful are at State or at the Office of the Vice President.

These intra-administration fights are often brutal. While the so-called “neoconservatives”—the political appointees, many of whom have nothing “neo” about their conservatism—have largely stuck to fighting through traditional policy channels, the careerists at State and CIA have made sport of leaking damning accusations and baseless charges at the so-called neocons, particularly to the Post.

Notice that of the six Post stories on Franklin or potential espionage for Israel—which ran almost one right after the other, from August 28 to September 4—the paper’s State Department reporter, Robin Wright, had a byline on four and a contribution line on one. No other Post reporter was as involved.

How does an FBI investigation about an official (or possibly, officials) at the Pentagon involve the State Department?

The only apparent answer seems to be that Wright, who has a history of extremely chummy reporting of the agency for both the Post and previously for the Los Angeles Times, was needed to report the State Department’s party line. Not to knock her skills as a reporter—she has a solid reputation as a newshound—but Wright has no doubt been helped over the years by crafting pieces largely flattering for State, and she’s known as one of deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage’s favorite outlets.

Nearly a month later, the “questions” being asked about the five named individuals are, it seems, no longer being asked. According to one person recently interviewed by the FBI concerning the Franklin case, “It’s my understanding, after talking to others questioned by the FBI, that no one has been asked about them [the people named by the Post].”

The old adage goes that the charge runs on page one, the acquittal on page 29. If, as appears likely, not even an investigation results on the five named individuals, will the Post write a high-profile story about them being cleared of charges that were never brought?