Numbers, nothing more than numbers

August 19, 2003

“Calpundit”:http://www.calpundit.com/ points out this one. Regarding the size of the American force in Afghanistan, Bush said yesterday:

bq. “We’ve got about 10,000 troops there, which is down from, obviously, major combat operations.”

However, the Post points out:

bq. In fact, the 10,000 troops in Afghanistan represent the highest number of U.S. soldiers in the country since the war there began. By the time the Taliban government had been vanquished in December 2001, U.S. troops numbered fewer than 3,000 in Afghanistan. And three months later, in March 2002, when the last major battle against remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda took place in eastern Afghanistan, about 5,000 U.S. troops were in the country. [ "Bush Revises Views On 'Combat' in Iraq":http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11485-2003Aug18.html ]

Bush looked at an _increase_ and saw a decrease. Well, he probably skipped that class.

I’m looking forward to hearing a Bushite twist himself into knots explaining that 80% of that 10,000 number doesn’t really count. “And for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”

Check the article out again for another example of the President Revisionist Historian (as I like to call him) in action. Also note his insistance that US comittment is significantly decreasing in Iraq as other countries take over, conveniently leaving out the fact that the US is paying for most of the foreign operations there. That’s a reduction in *lives* comitted, yes, but not so much resources.

See, that’s what the press is supposed to do: report what people say and how it matches up to other facts. I’m sure this will be cited as lefty bias from the Post nevertheless.

Posted in Archived Unsorted