For those looking for info on Iraq…
Over the past several days I have been asked by more than a few people as to where they could find raw statistics and information to give them an idea of what is happening in Iraq. As a result, I have decided to take just a few minutes and write up this short post describing where everyone can find a horde of fairly objective stats and info.
The best place to go is the homepage of the Iraq Index, published by the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Studies. It is updated and published on a bi-weekly basis in Adobe .pdf format and contains lots of data compiled from a myriad of news sources. Just be warned, like every other think tank around, the Brookings Institution has a political bias (it leans to the center-left).
Secondly, the Department of State publishes the Iraq Weekly Status Report in .pdf format every Wednesday. I don’t think it’s as useful or as comprehensive as the Iraq Index, but it still has some fairly good information. Of course, it takes a pro-administration position.
And finally, here’s Emily Hunt… I’m linking to her for no particular reason other than the fact that she’s a hot and seems to know a lot about terrorists, which I think makes her even more hot.
Hope this helps a bit. This post was about giving readers information, not debating the war, so please don’t bless us with political hackery on the issue; let’s leave that to the talking heads.
Thanks!
Emily Hunt is not exactly hot. Shes average at best.
One other site I find helpful is Iraq the model. Another, if you are goulishly inclined, is Iraqi body count a good anti-war site that fairly lists the amount of civilian deaths. It is a good resource when you get a lot of lefty bloggers who are reporting greatly exagerated death counts to try to make a moral equivalence between Bush and Saddam (one prominent far-left blogger and Saddam suporter is reporting “over a million”)
Unless that picture doesn’t do her justice, Emily Hunt’s not hot.
I don’t know, Ms Hunt is certainly attractive, in “I only have a half hour to make myself look good in the morning” way; though comparing her to celebs and media types who spend hours and a lot of $$s to work on their looks, she is not.
I’m just wondering readership intellectual alignments: how many here read or support the likes of Michelle Malkin/Podhoretz, or believe that Rupert Murdoch is a force for good or that his television stations & rags are respectable or intellectually honest?
Again, only a curiosity.
Rietzche,
Is that question really relevant?
“Is that question really relevant?”
Maybe not, although this one was more a political thread than not. Anyhow, i thought it might be an interesting question, regardless of it’s immediate relevancy.
The picture doesn’t do her justice. I’ve seen her on the news a few times and I must say she’s quite hot.
She looks like a man, for the love of God. Her eyes lack the upper fold, her mouth protudes like that of the horse’s mouth. Her nose is boring. Her neck is too big. The only nice about her is her hair. Now we all know that men can grow long hair too.
Even her blouse is soooo transvestite.
I guess you have to see her from TV to think differently… oh well.
Please post a link to one of her video appearances if possible.
Unfortunately, I have no links to video of any of her appearances. But enjoy the other links.
Ann Coulter, Emily Hunt, my, Republican chicks are ghastly ugly.
Ann Coulter, Emily Hunt, my, Republican chicks are ghastly ugly.
innumerate please. selection bias?
Ann Coulter, Emily Hunt, my, Republican chicks are ghastly ugly.
So would I be correct in assuming that you find Barbra Streisand and Corrine Brown to be hot?
For Republican babes: http://www.jerseygop.com/R_babes/index.html
Check out this week’s. Kim Smith… WOW!
I know of no source that shows Hunt’s political orientation. She’s pro-Israel, but that doesn’t make her a Republican.
Rietzche,
The evasion of your question is an answer of sorts.
Deception is at the heart of the art of war. Trying and failing to deceive is for losers. You have to take account of your opponent’s resources. People here aren’t the target audience for the propagandist class that you point to. Some people here might align with the political objectives, but they aren’t going to come right out and say, “I’m with stupid.”
Ah, Arcane, if you read the babe-of-the week’s article:
“Half my family is Democrat and half is Republican, so I?m open-minded.
How can you lay claim REAL Republican loyalty from this babes? How dare you!!!
LOL.
In terms of political bias/slant, you might also point out that Ms. Hunt’s employer, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, has a TOTALLY pro-Israeli slant, which imbues everything that comes out of it.
Forrest,
And what did I say?
I know of no source that shows Hunt’s political orientation. She’s pro-Israel, but that doesn’t make her a Republican.
So, congratulations, you contributions absolutely NOTHING to this discussion. Now scurry along…
*contributed
Arcane,
I’m sorry if I offended you, but I was responding to the original posting, and was addressing the question of INSTITUTIONAL think-tank bias/slant, such as you mentioned in the case of the Brookings Institution; no one with any knowledge of the Middle East or the way Middle Eastern issues are reflected in Washington sees WINEP as an objective or neutral player in the fray.
As for contributing to the discussion, I won’t even try to compete with your numerous postings on whether/why Ms. Hunt is “hot”. Your aesthetic standards are your own business, and if they’re your criteria for recommendation, that’s fine by me.
no one with any knowledge of the Middle East or the way Middle Eastern issues are reflected in Washington sees WINEP as an objective or neutral player in the fray
I challenge you to show me a single “objective” think tank. They don’t exist, plain and simple. That’s why before reading anything written by members of them, one should make themselves aware of the bias. The best way to get an objective viewpoint about anything political is to simply read both sides. That’s what I do.
Arcane, I agree with you. Which was why I merely wanted to point out the particular institutional bias of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. That’s all my initial post was intended to do, in order to provide background for readers who might not be familiar with it. It wasn’t intended as a rebuke, but merely as a bit of added information to put the source into context.
Friends again?
Ok, friends…
Next time I link to a chick I find hot (come on, Kim Smith is hot), I’ll mention her political bias. :)