Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

War on Iraq

How to Make Hundreds of Thousands of Dead Iraqis Disappear

By Eric Alterman, Huffington Post. Posted October 20, 2006.


The Lancet study that estimated 655,000 Iraqis killed since the US invasion of 2003 was based on some of the most solid research methods possible, but that didn't stop the American press from trying to say it wasn't so.
Advertisement

According to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, George Bush's lies have killed not 30,000 innocent Iraqis, as the president not long ago estimated, but nearly 22 times that amount, or 655,000. Neither the Pentagon, nor much of the mainstream media have made much attempt to make their own counts -- it's just not that important to anyone. So how has the U.S. media reported on these shocking-albeit-necessarily-imprecise findings, based on door-to-door surveys in 18 provinces, by the experts trained in this kind of thing? The actual methods included obtaining data by eight Iraqi physicians during a survey of 1,849 Iraqi families -- 12,801 people -- in 47 neighborhoods of 18 regions across the country. The researchers based the selection of geographical areas on population size, not on the level of violence. How strict were their standards? They asked for death certificates to prove claims -- and got them in 92 percent of the cases. Even so, the authors say that the number could be anywhere from 426,000 to 800,000.

Well, Greg Mitchell has written two columns on the topic for Editor & Publisher and he finds, here and here, that:

  • The Associated Press casts a very skeptical eye on the study, emphasizing the views of one "expert" Anthony Cordesman, (as the AP describes him) who charges that it is nothing but "politics," with the November election approaching.

  • The Washington Post, meanwhile, interviewed Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years. He called the Johns Hopkins survey method "tried and true" and added that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have."

  • Sarah Leah Whitson, an official of Human Rights Watch in New York, told the Post, "We have no reason to question the findings or the accuracy" of the survey.

  • Frank Harrell Jr., chairman of the biostatistics department at Vanderbilt University, told the Associated Press the study incorporated "rigorous, well-justified analysis" of the data.

  • Richard Garfield, a public health professor at Columbia University who works closely with a number of the authors of the report, told The Christian Science Monitor: "That's exactly wrong. There is no discrediting of this methodology. I don't think there's anyone who's been involved in mortality research who thinks there's a better way to do it in unsecured areas. I have never heard of any argument in this field that says there's a better way to do it."

  • The sampling "is solid. The methodology is as good as it gets," said John Zogby, whose polling agency, Zogby International, has done several surveys in Iraq since the war began. "It is what people in the statistics business do." Zogby said similar survey methods have been used to estimate casualty figures in other conflicts, such as Darfur and the Congo.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: bush, iraq, hitchens, deaths, lancet

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The politics of numbers
Posted by: LeftWright on Oct 20, 2006 12:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
655,000 dead in Iraq is politics, Bush says.

How about gas prices going down, down, down right up to an election?

How about the Dow jumping above 12,000 right before an election?

Cheney/Bush have been caught lying constantly ever since 9/11.

Is it possible that they're lying about 9/11, too?

We really do need a new investigation, now.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The politics of numbers Posted by: Suburban Dad
» And they sell so very well, too Posted by: LeftWright
» RE: The politics of numbers Posted by: canipanic
» stock market--the DOW at '12,000' Posted by: LDavistrueblue
Statistics
Posted by: CatDad on Oct 20, 2006 12:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Extrapolated statistics are easy to question under any circumstances. It doesn't matter anyway because most Americans are basically too narcissistic to care whether the number of dead Iraqis is 10,000 or 1 million. We didn’t care about the deaths during the economic sanctions in the 90s. It’s all about the # of US troops being killed. Being a sophisticated leftist American I honestly couldn’t tell you how many Vietnamese civilians died during our intrusion into their nation and constant carpet bombing of it. I think 2 or 3 million died but I know for a fact that 55K Americans died…I guess I’m another narcissistic American.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Statistics Posted by: AdamG
» RE: Statistics Posted by: Graeme
» RE: Statistics Posted by: Graeme
Dead Iraqis Don't Talk
Posted by: Tom Degan on Oct 20, 2006 2:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Recently, whenever this hideous topic came up in conversation, my usual line was that the Bush administration was responsible for the deaths of at least one-hundred thousand Iraqi men, women and little children in Iraq.

STOP THE PRESSES!

From this day on, that number will be "at least half a million". When asked by CNN at a press conference about the new numbers put out by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the First Fool dismissed the findings as nonsense. Right. His estimate last year was thirty thousand and he's sticking to it.

George W. Bush is guilty of the most horrendous crimes since Hitler. Is it a mere coincidence that his drunken daughter, Jenna, was recently reported negotiating the purchase of ninety-eight thousand acres of farm land in Paraguay? Well, a war criminal has got to go somewhere, right? Does that country have an extradition treaty with the United States? I don't know the answer to that question but I'm willing to bet that it does not. Does anyone have the answer to that question? Any info would be much appreciated.

Is it a stretch to compare a murderous, half-witted little thug like Bush to Adolf Hitler? Not at all. It must be remembered that der fuhrer was able to take control of his country via legal means. He demanded of the German parliament absolute power and the German parliament caved in absolutely. The German people looked away with utter indifference. In a matter of time, he was able to crush all political opposition by means of murder and intimidation. Within a little over a decade, his beloved fatherland lay in smoldering ruins. Millions of its citizens were dead.

We're almost at the point of no return. Everything depends on November 7th. James Madison once remarked that our system of checks and balances did not have to rely on the good intentions of its leaders and was designed to withstand the machinations of the devil. But what if the devil himself seeks to destroy that system with the aid of a corrupt, incompetant congress? What if the masses, distracted by the celebraty scandal ju jour, are just too stupid to care?

7 November will be remembered as the most fated or fatal election in history. The choice is ours.

Pray for peace.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dead Iraqis Don't Talk Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Dead Iraqis Don't Talk Posted by: karyse
» RE: Dead Iraqis Don't Talk Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: Dead Iraqis Don't Talk Posted by: Basenjis
» Yes They Do! Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Yes They Do! Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: Yes They Do! Posted by: Conservasaurus
America acts for herself and her people only
Posted by: werewolf on Oct 20, 2006 2:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whenever we see Bush speak of freedom he always talks of America first. To talk that way he considers that Americans are a chosen people exactly like the Jews claim that status for themselves. Americans should have privileges over the unchosen ones. Thats a fundamental right for the Jews at first and now the Americans.

And as we all know it is always the chosen people with their privileges that believe they have a god given right to trample on others to achieve and protect their privileges. It does not matter to them if they have to kill thousands or millions of the unchosen ones to maintain those privileges.

For a just a CAPTURED soldier, the chosen Jews of Israel had no compunction in devastating a whole country and killing innocent women and children.

For a few thousand dead Americans, the USA devasted Afghanistan and Iraq with carpet bombing killing tens of thousands of innocent Afghans and Iraqis and still refuse to stop the killings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

still lying
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 20, 2006 2:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bushies are still lying about Iraq war-related deaths and the American press is, for the most part, still helping the Bushies get away with their lies. It's simply a mass-deception campaign of extraordinary proportions engaged in by people who have forgotten what truth is all about. The American press should not be fascist enablers as occured in Nazi Germany.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: still lying Posted by: edith
» RE: still lying Posted by: rsaxto
Who says its discredited?
Posted by: Colin on Oct 20, 2006 3:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought I’d post a few more complimentary quotes regarding the Lancet study from people that actually know about that kind of thing, just to hammer home how uncontroversial the methodology really is, even if its outcomes are.

“Speaking as a medical doctor, I wish to set the record straight. The Lancet study is superb science. The study followed a strict, widely accepted methodology to arrive at its sobering conclusion. The study is being attacked not on scientific grounds, but for ideological reasons.”

Dr. Curren Warf, a professor of paediatric medicine and a board member of the Physicians for Social Responsibility

"The methodology used is consistent with survey methodology that has long been standard practice in estimating mortality in populations affected by war. For example, the Burnet Institute and International Rescue Committee (IRC) used the same methods to estimate mortality in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The findings of this study received widespread media attention and were accepted without reservation by the US and British governments. The Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health's Centre for International Health endorses this study."

Professor Mike Toole of the Centre for International Health, Melbourne

"Given the conditions (in Iraq), it's actually quite a remarkable effort. I can't imagine them doing much more in a much more rigorous fashion."

Steve Heeringa, director of the statistical design group at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan

“Statistically reliable”

Sir Richard Peto, Professor of Medical Statistics at the University of Oxford

“"They have enhanced the precision this time around and it is the only scientifically based estimate that we have got where proper sampling has been done and where we get a proper measure of certainty about these results."

Professor Sheila Bird of the Biostatistics Unit at the Medical Research Council

"It is worth emphasising the quality of this latest report, as judged by four expert peers who provided detailed comments to editors."

Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet (which, let’s not forget, is one of the most prestigious peer reviewed journals in the world, in any discipline).

Of course, I could have sited many many more. What is interesting I find is that, amongst those in the most informed position to give comment, I cannot find any dissent. I cannot find one respected authority in the world of statistics that is prepared to say this study is flawed. The only groups that seem to follow that line are politicians and, unfortunately, the mass media.

It will go down in history as one of journalism’s biggest missed opportunities as GWB stated the study was ‘pretty much discredited’ and not one single journalist had the balls to ask, why?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Whats in a number! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Whats in a number! Posted by: taxidave
» RE: Whats in a number! Posted by: Colin
» RE: Whats in a number! Posted by: cletus
» RE: Whats in a number! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Whats in a number! Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: Whats in a number! Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: Whats in a number! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Whats in a number! Posted by: lively56
» RE: Whats in a number! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Whats in a number! Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: Whats in a number! Posted by: symcokid
» RE: Whats in a number! Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: Whats in a number! Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: Whats in a number! Posted by: Graeme
» RE: Who says its discredited? Posted by: akai ringo
» RE: Who says its discredited? Posted by: canipanic
We have had more practice, involved in more wars.
Posted by: symcokid on Oct 20, 2006 4:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The killings started with the incursion of this land and the slaughtering of the Indigenous People and has continued practically nonstop to the present, so we should be far better at Genocide than Hussein ever thought of being. If these practically defenseless countries didn't have resources we wanted to steal we wouldn't be wiping them out with our 'state of the art weaponry'.

This government has never been wrong about anything before so why start now, we can always fabricate some BS to justify our skewed Foreign Policy, arrogance, aggressions and atrocities

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How to hide 655,000 dead Iraqis
Posted by: Intraspecto on Oct 20, 2006 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An awful lot of ways. My question is this- why do we have a body count anyway. The act is done, no one has raised any objections on a massive scale, its like the public is deaf dumb and mute over this one- or so callous to call them all "enemies" and not even care. Sick and sad, but true...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now what?
Posted by: scott balogh on Oct 20, 2006 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Compelling article and many thoughtful comments. What are we going to do about it? It is humbling to accept that the usa has been built on, in part, genocide. When is civilization going to become fully civilized? My big question is, how do we get out of the mess we are in? How do we get rid of the pompous ruling elite? This current crop in the whitehouse is so cynical and disconnected and damaging, yet they are still there. This is stunning to say the least. When I asked my congress rep (Peter DeFazio) how we can clean out the whitehouse, his response was a lengthy explanation of why impeachment won't work. I believe him, which is why they should be removed by force. I am not a charasmatic sort nor am I any kind of leader nor am I brave. I do ask respectfully of the pool of compassionate ones such as the readers of this site, is there a leader who can help us rid our country of the scourge? Is it too late? Has it been too late since the genocide of native americans began and the knowledge of it been minimized?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Now what? Posted by: symcokid
» RE: Now what? Posted by: ItsTime
» Break out the ax! Posted by: edith
» RE: Break out the ax! Posted by: polyquat50
70,000 DEAD IN MID-EAST AUGERS GLAD TIDINGS IN WAR ON TERRORISM
Posted by: cognitorex on Oct 20, 2006 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Professor Adolph Von Euclid revealed today new math formulations which indicate that continuing massive deaths in the Middle East herald increasing success in the war on terror.
The newly revealed postulates show that at present for each thousand miscarnaged civilians nine point seven terrorists are killed. An ancillary formulation to the miscarnaged postulates shows that in near simultanity seventeen new terrorists are created per thousand miscarnagees resulting in a dead/arisen terrorist ratio of negative fifty seven per cent, plus or minus an Arab or two either way.
Using Third Reichian formulae, adjusted for lack of Jews in the study, genocidal statistics show that the number of new terrorists arising per thousand expunged civilians will eventually peak at thirty one point eight while the the number of terrorists killed per thousand collateral accidentists will increase non linearly due to the massive influx of new terrorists and the time honored normal war time change in methods of recording so many damn dead, dead, dead people.
The so postulated formulaic conclusion is that at one hundred twelve thousand innocents slaughtered the terrorist dead to terrorists arisen ratio should geometrically swoop into the positive range heralding a pleasant advance in the war on terror:
All going well, that is.

(from cognitorex blogspot September 5)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Holocaust Denial
Posted by: autocraticforcefeed on Oct 20, 2006 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand why holocaust denial is such a huge deal when in every other conflict, it's always fair game to dispute the numbers, thereby erasing human casualties from memory. For me, they are equivalent. It is one thing to deny one's involvement in atrocities. It is quite another to insist they never happened and attempt to write history as such.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why statistics works for this kind of study
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 20, 2006 8:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A good number of alternet commentators have tried to attack the Lancet study because "it's just statistical", so it's worth considering how statistical counts works.

Say you've been given the job of counting every blade of grass on an 18-hole golf course (this works well for conversations with Republicans). This could take you quite a while, so you decide to adopt a statistical approach.

Starting with hole 1, you measure the total grassy area (in square yards). Then, you carefully count the blades of grass in a single square yard. If you want to be more careful, you might 'randomly sample' a ten different 1-yard squares at different locations. Multiply these counts by the total area and you have a decent statistical estimate for that hole.

Repeat this procedure for each hole - and what you have is a statistical estimate of the number of blades of grass on the golf course. This is tedious work, but it'd be far worse to attempt counting every single blade of grass (particularly if people are shooting at each other all around you!)

So, that's similar to what the Lancet study did in Iraq.

If you look at the mainstream news regularly, you'll also have noticed that the US just passed the 300 million population mark. That is also a statistial estimate of rather large uncertainty, but did you see any Republican pundits attacking the 'statistical mumbo-jumbo'?

The range on the Iraq estimate is 400,000 - 900,000 dead. Counting war dead is more difficult than counting blades of grass or grains of sand, so there's uncertainty.

The methods in use for the Lancet study are highly reliable - they've been effectively used by insurance companies, political consultants, and medical researchers for many decades.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just numbers, or a comma
Posted by: willymack on Oct 20, 2006 10:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Considering the fact that the American people and Congress were lied and bullied into an illegal war for the purpose of making obscene amounts of money and controlling Iraq's oil, one innocent victim is one too many. The true number of innocent men, women, and children killed or maimed in this "war", no matter what it is, is a hideous fact that cries out for justice in the form of the removal, trial, and imprisonment of those responsible. The cheerful-nay the ebullient demeanor of bush and rove of late can mean only one of two things, namely, they've fallen off the cliff into full insanity, or they already know the results of the November "elections".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just numbers, or a comma Posted by: Basenjis
How does America ever say we're sorry
Posted by: ggmurray on Oct 20, 2006 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For a down-to-earth consideration of the estimate of Iraqi dead, take a look at the Oct 18 post in the powerful blog Baghdad Burning http://riverbendblog.bogspot.com

I also am stunned at the 600,000 estimate of deaths in Iraq. Her message paints a personal picture of what that means, and I am grateful she is speaking the truth of her experience.

Life is so different here where life goes on as usual, at least on the surface. But I can feel there is a great uneasiness in the American population about this war, and as we approach the November elections, I expect to see a change in Congress. I surely hope so, for that is the realistic way for this war to end. Bush will still be President for a while longer. He can issue his proclamations. But it is the Congress that allows the money to be spent - for war or anything else.

I have wondered, ever since I passionately marched, along with millions of others in different parts of the world, in opposition to this war, months before it began. I have wondered how can you ever say "I'm sorry - it was a mistake" - when you ruin a country's infrastructure and slaughter its people. What can you ever do to make it right?

I think these are times to pray for humility... for guidance... for the courage to act with justice and love. What that will look like, I do not know. We writers do our part by speaking truth, and by imagining a life that shines - beyond these dreadful times.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NINETY TWO PERCENT HAD DEATH CERTIFICATES!!
Posted by: owlbear1 on Oct 20, 2006 11:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess if it wasn't issued by a white guy then its not valid?


That's 602,600 Confirmed dead! And the Hacks at CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC go 'oh pish and tosh' a white guy didn't hand out the paperwork so it can't possibly be true.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Apathy
Posted by: Rathan47 on Oct 20, 2006 11:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Newscaster: "Iraq...new study...650,000 Dead...estimates...tragedy...Bush..."

Avg American: Yawn...scratch, scratch, scratch... Hey, honey, anything good on TV tonight?

Let's face it...in general no one could care less how many people are dead in Iraq. As long as the TV is on, food on the table, SUV in the yard, things are A-OK. Sure, it's awful, but it's such a hard thing to fathom, and it's so far away. And after all, they brought it on themselves. That's what happens when you side with the terrorists, or so 39% of the US population thinks.

And of those that do care, what have we done? Nothing. We talk and talk and talk and talk. If you disagree with what's happening in Iraq we are outraged and bluster about the outrages and indignity and inhumanity. If you agree with the policies in Iraq you belittle and cajole, lie, distort or ignore the truth.

Spin, spin, spin, spin. But no action.

The truth is, change will never come until someone takes action. The administration of the US is doing this in all your names. And it is your right, nay, your responsibility as a citizen not only of your country, but of the world, to stand up for injustice and indignity to your neighbour.

But it's oh so far removed. Only several thousand US dead? That means only 1/1000 of 1% if the population has had a family member die in battle there. Do you think that the US population would scream a little louder if it were 30,000 US dead, as opposed to 3,000? What about 300,000? But you don't see that. You don't see the bodies, you don't see the blood, or the carnage. And it's oh, so far away. And anyway, look what they did to us. They deserve what they get.

And that's just the way the US Administration wants it. Just relax, go shopping. Keep that economy going. Buy more gas. Smile. Trust us...trust me. I know what's best.

What I say now, I say as my own personal opinion. I believe that America's Founding Fathers would be ashamed, no, not just ashamed but instead full of righteous fury over what they would witness now. And I am not talking about the attrocities in Iraq. No, I'm talking about the indifference and apathy of the American citizen. They would wonder why the hell they struggled and fought for independence. Why had they worked so hard to build a nation built on ideas and principles, one that would be the beacon of hope for future generations?

I believe they would be the first to start the charge, the first to rise up and say, "Enough!". To refuse to allow a corrupt and deceitful and manipulative government commit such actions in their name. They so believed in their hard won freedoms and liberty that they even wrote into their laws and guidelines that if necessary, the government should be cast down and replaced in such circumstances.

But...all that's in the past. It's easier to sit on the couch...and complain about the price of gas, or taxes, or Bush, or Osama, or whatever.

The truth is, you've already lost the battle. You won't know it until the yoke is around your neck. And then... then it will be too late. Then you've got no one to blame but yourself.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Apathy Posted by: jredd
Culture Of Life.. My Foot
Posted by: eyeman on Oct 20, 2006 1:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dead Troops count.
9/11 victims count
Londoners count
Arabs are Scum. This is the Message.
If America cared about life of others this would not have happenned. Culture of life . My foot.
Selective Morality !!!!! We are against Barnarism when it is against us. Do not care if it is against them.
What matters to us???
9/11 victims. They are true blue blood, murdered in the most barbaric way. and 2800 Troops. They are brave noble patriots.
These may be true statements. But if we are selective in calling mass murder mass murder , we are just plain racists.
This is not about Bush accepting or rejecting numbers. It is about the American public who voted for them and will vote Lieberman back to the senate soon. It is about the publc who made FOX the leading TV operation in the US.
History will say we enabled this. We funded it from our taxes. We sent our kids to fight. We equipped them with depleted uranium.
And History will not forgive us. Neither will the children of the Half million Iraqi.
This will be the war of your children and mine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Orders to Kill all Iraqi's of Military Age
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 20, 2006 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to Woodward in "State of Denial," Bush was pushing for high body counts in Iraq. This was to show that the US was making progress. If 4-5 US troops died and 50 or 100 Iraqi's died, this was considered progress. Now, if some of those deaths were civilian, this presumably does not matter. Why? Because in Iraq everyone can be assumed to be "the enemy." Consistent with this is that US Army units in Iraq reportedly told soldiers on multiple ocassions to "kill all Iraqi's of military age." Hence, the goal has been maximizing the number of Iraqi killed. Then, why the embarrassment now and disputing of the numbers? Only because the true intention of the military campaign has come out? Iraq is now like Vietnam, the people presumably have to be killed to save the country. They might all be "sympathizers," is the likely scenario. This is how bad things have become.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

National rePublican Radio
Posted by: YogiBear on Oct 20, 2006 2:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recall seeing on The Daily Show that when Bush got done playing around with Suzanne Malveaux and her fashion statement that day, she asked him about the study. He replied that "their methodology has been pretty well discredited." This is a bald-faced lie, of course. But here's my question. Were there any follow-ups?

Just another example of our so-called "lberal" press lying down to die. It's like asking the fox what he thinks of the massacre of chickens in the henhouse. Of course he's gonna lie.

Why wasn't Bush challenged on it? The other Day on NPR's Morning Edition, reporter Steve Inskeep stuck it to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a Dem who is running for office. His questioning was hard hitting and in my view, great journalism. A few days later, two Republicans were featured on the same program, and both were lobbed softball questions by Linda Wertheimer and not challenged on any of their responses.

Our supposedly liberal media is actually rightward leaning, because the program directors and editors and their masters know that conservatives are much more fickle and more easily offended by having their beliefs questioned by the press. So the right will always get a free pass and the left will always get the shaft.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

30,000 is bad too.
Posted by: Happy on Oct 20, 2006 4:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The estimation of 655,000 Iraqi deaths resulting from the US war of aggression is appalling. Although the new figure overshadows the old one tremendously, 30,000 dead is quite a statistic in its own right.

Don't let George W. Bush get away with this. Hold him accountable to the law.

No more blood for oil!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What About Dead Insurgents!?!
Posted by: opeluboy on Oct 20, 2006 5:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In all the back and forth on the Lancet report, a figure seemingly overlooked is the number of dead Iraqi insurgents. Remember, the 650,000 estimate only deals with civilians. So I was encouraged to read this piece on Left I today, which I arrived at through the always excellent Cursor. I wanted to provide a link, but this site won't allow a "word" that long. So go to lefti.blogspot.com and look for Unreported Deaths in Iraq. An eye opener.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Molly Ivins wasn't so wrong
Posted by: launcher on Oct 20, 2006 5:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As many of you know, Molly Ivins wrote an article last year claiming that the Iraqi dead since the U.S. occupation had exceeded the dead due to the reign of Saddam Hussein. She subsequently apologized, because she mischaracterized the known facts at the time.

Well, maybe it's time Molly apologizes for her apology. We were with you all along, Ms. Ivins, yes we were!

Frankly, I think there's a bit of an inequality comparing the deaths attributed to Saddam and the deaths attributed to the present occupation. After all, the current deaths are costing the U.S. a lot of money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just a Public Relations Problem
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 20, 2006 5:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do you all think GW Bush necessarily has a problem with the dead in Iraq??? After all, didn't Jesus tell him (GW) to go into Iraq? After all, GW knows all about being convinced and divinely inspired from his periods of recovery from alcohol abuse. GW is not going to change course. This is just a PR problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War Politically (and Practically) Unsustainable
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Oct 20, 2006 8:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the bright side, the war has shown the realities of US foreign policy in the light of day. It has gone some way to solidify the left by providing a clear object, an object that is uncontroversially contemptible, to rally against. It has also done a lot to undermine the whole ideologically apparatus. The media in particular has been shown as largely serving as a propaganda device, owning to its refusal to admit any critical reporting, and has itself fallen victim to unwelcome public scrutiny. Subsequent administrations will have to work hard to undue the damage that has been done, it may even turn out the damage is beyond repair.

My guess is that we will fail in our objective to control Iraq/Middle East oil. As the empire begins to collapse we can expect to see increasing desperation on the part of the powers that be – my hope is this will trigger enough popular protest that most of the potential damage will be mitigated – we have the option to mature gracefully, the question (and time will tell) is will we choose this option.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Index Of Evil
Posted by: calm on Oct 21, 2006 1:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we were discrediting any report which claimed that only a million Jewish folks died during the holocaust, and quibbled about the numbers of 6 million or less .... we would be called anti-semites and holocaust deniers.

But, when it comes to Iraqi folks and muslims or arabs, we are said to be just "skeptical".

Just how many people was Saddam worth?

Even if it was 300 thousand .... it is a shameful crime.

Calm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Index Of Evil
Posted by: calm on Oct 21, 2006 1:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we were discrediting any report which claimed that less then 6 million Jewish folks died during the holocaust, and quibbled about the numbers of 6 million or less .... we would be called anti-semites and holocaust deniers.

But, when it comes to Iraqi folks and muslims or arabs, we are said to be just "skeptical".

Just how many people was Saddam worth?

Even if it was 300 thousand .... it is a shameful crime.

Calm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Karma is real,but sometimes slow.
Posted by: Burtonger on Oct 23, 2006 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the people in denial of the murders on their hands will get what they deserve eventually,it just may come a little later when they don't expect it or recognize it,but it's coming make no mistake. NAZI is NAZI no matter what they call it now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We might add another phony stat