IT JUST HIT THE AP WIRE: 655,000 Iraqis died due to war

[berni_mccoy]

It's on the front page of http://news.yahoo.com

NEW YORK - A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates. The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics."

In the new study, researchers attempt to calculate how many more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. Their conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire. They also found a small increase in deaths from other causes like heart disease and cancer.

"Deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003," Dr. Gilbert Burnham, lead author of the study, said in a statement.

The study by Burnham, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and others is to be published Thursday on the Web site of The Lancet, a medical journal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061011/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_death_toll

[knowbody0]

1. add the 300,000 who have fled Iraq

and now live as refugees, the country lost nearly a million because monkey man can't think.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

4. someone posted that NBC said a million refugees...

I'm trying to find the link...

[Ravenseye]

57. I've read even more than that

I know quite a few myself personally, and there are entire neighborhoods in Jordan becoming little Iraqi communities.

[maxsolomon]

106. the number is 1.1 million

300K internally displaced
890K "moved" to jordan, syria, iran

for what? the oil is still going to dry up.

[krkaufman]

110. Well, displaced is decidedly different from deceased

Neither is ideal, but one is significantly less irredeemable.

[SmokingJacket]

215. True, but both numbers help give a sense of how many lives

have been turned upside down by this -- and how far from "normal" things are.

[krkaufman]

227. Wholly agree. The devastation is incomparable.

But, just for the grade school math of it, I did a comparison earlier (below), extrapolating the Lancet's Iraqi fatality numbers, by percent of the population, to the US population.

Basically, the Lancet fatality figure of 665,000 extrapolates to 8.19 million US citizens dead... the current population of New York City. DEAD.

Similarly, consider the fatalities from the 9/11 attacks extrapolated by percent of population to Iraq...

~3,000 fatalities (US) =~ 240 fatalities (Iraq)

Assuming the latest Lancet numbers, Iraq is experiencing the equivalent of all 9/11 fatalities TWICE DAILY!!

665,000 fatalities / 43 months = 515 fatalities per day

Hell, even if the Lancet numbers are doubly wrong (which the study estimates a 10% chance), every day in Iraq is the equivalent of 9/11 for Iraqi civilians.

And people still question the polls that show the Iraqis want us out of their country?

[BlueOysterCult]

139. Politics is what got us in this mess!

there wouldnt be 600K dead if the BUSH warmongers weren't playing politics - this whole war is political - how can a report not be considered political?

[mmonk]

2. That would be a sobering splash to the people

if it were in every headline in the country.

[badgerpup]

116. Just so that Joe and Jane Voter can get their heads around the number...

...what American city had a similar population?
I mean, you say, "655,000 Iraqis have been killed." and the average answer may be anywhere from :grr:, going through "So?" to "Serves 'em right!"

:banghead:

But...if you put it in the context of "655,000 Iraqis have been killed. That's the same number of people that live in _______, USA," (and I think it would be a fairly sizable city)
there would be some understanding of the magnitude of this outrage. :cry::puke:

[Uncle Joe]

117. That is also aprox. the same number we lost in our Civil War

and about the same total population.

[hfojvt]

159. Allentown, Baton Rouge, Harrisburg, Jersey City, Wilminton, Sarasota

Scranton, Springfield, Ma; Toledo, Wichita, or Youngstown, are in the 600-650,000 range.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

3. Hundreds of thousands dead, and an expert calls it "politics"

I don't know the veracity of this study, but clearly there has been an outrageous death toll in Iraq. Welcome to the liberation.

[berni_mccoy]

13. Notice the "expert" questions the timing, not the results...

[RevolutionStartsNow]

26. Hell of an expert, wouldn't you say?

I also love how the expert is anonymous.

[Cha]

189. "Collateral Damage" for bush LIES.

I read bush was on tv today saying that number of dead Iraqis "not credible"..the little shit for brains doesn't want to take responsibility for the number of Iraqis he killed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2556493

[dweller]

5. K ... and ... R ...

:cry:

dp

[ComerPerro]

6. this is about as questionable as Bush's claims of Saddam slaughtering

hundreds of thousands.

I don't think numbers accumulated by "household interviews" can really be trusted as accurate.

Their has to be tons of overlap.

[berni_mccoy]

8. I think the guy knows how to perform a survey

Here's his bio:

Dr. Gilbert M. Burnham is the co-director of the Center for Refugee and Disaster Response at Johns Hopkins. He has extensive experience in emergency preparedness and response, particularly in humanitarian needs assessment, program planning, and evaluation that address the needs of vulnerable populations, and the development and implementation of training programs. He also has extensive experience in the development and evaluation of community-based health program planning and implementation, health information system development, management and analysis, and health system analysis. He has worked with numerous humanitarian and health development programs for multilateral and non-governmental organizations, regional health departments, ministries of health (national and district level), and communities in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. A major current activity is the reconstruction of health services in Afghanistan.

[ComerPerro]

17. Yeah, but imagine this

if you go to random households and ask for data on how many people one household knows of that have been killed, there is going to be overlap. Five people might include the same person in their count. If this data is then simply compiled into a formula, it could possibly yield very inaccurate results.


When the Conservatives were gearing up for the war, they threw out figures of the thousands and thousands who Saddam made "disappear", simply by asking random people something like "how many people do you know who have been taken or killed by Saddam?"

[TheMadMonk]

47. And your background in statistical analysis is?

I doubt very much if that question or one like it was asked.

These people don't ask questions for which there are ambiguous or meaningless answers. Not if they want clear and meaningful results.

"How many members of your family..." seems to rather neatly avoid the particular problem you raised.

Demographers want to know the answer that the person being questioned actually knows of himself. Not what he knows that "everybody knows".

If anything, (presuming the researchers methods are sound) I'd say that the answer they have arrived at is on the low side, since I suspect that the researchers stayed out of (or were kept out of) the most strife torn reagions.

[ComerPerro]

118. problem is, even "members of your family" has tons of overlap

[whathappened]

76. what ever the count

it is 1 more then was needed , why are we killing our fellow humens in the first place , alot of these people eat shit and try to have a happy life , we did'nt need to be there and we did,nt need king george calling the killings of any people any where

[ComerPerro]

120. well duh

[ananda]

Look, even if..

.. it was 300k, it's a horrible crime that the USA has perpetrated.

I think it -was- 600K plus, but any number in the six or seven
figures speaks of something very evil going on there.

We need to get out of there NOW!

[ComerPerro]

119. and when did I say it wasn't a crime?

[demgurl]

122. I am not sure how much overlap there really is.

The BBC did a segment on this and the expert said they had names, dates and the way people died. Does not sound like they haphazardly went around asking how many people died that each person knew. This is a solid study and even backs up the first one from a couple of years ago when it was only 100,000 dead.

[ComerPerro]

156. its a very large number. Before we go around quoting it

we might want to put a little more time into this research.

Remember, both sides have their reasons for exaggerating the number.

Anti-War groups might be motivated to accept studies with the highest numbers because it reinforces what they already know, that this was a stupid and unnecessary war and cost thousands of innocents their lives.

And Pro-War groups, naturally, will accept only studies that show minimial death tolls, as to make the war seem less devistating and evil

[greiner3]

180. To eat dog?

[Bretttido]

142. Pu-leeease

These people are not idiots. They have spent their entire lives in the field of statistical analysis and you think you can pick apart their approach based on what you THINK they might have asked?

[ComerPerro]

149. No, but I can do basic math

655,000 deaths over a 3.5 year period is just over 500 deaths per day.

[John Gauger]

168. If they have spent their whole lives in this field

then they know how to inflate these numbers. We don't need to ask if they know what they are doing. We need to ask if they are intentionally misleading us. I am not going to embrace this just because it reinforces my beliefs. I think we should go about this scientifically.

[Bretttido]

171. I was responding to the post that infered their METHODOLOGY was flawed

The possiblity of political forces behind this study is another question.

[John Gauger]

184. I know

My point is that if the methodology is flawed, it is for political reasons, not from a lack of expertise. I am not asserting either way that they are or are not biased. I just want to point out what the potential problems are.

[ComerPerro]

173. thank you, exactly

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

175. I also think we should do this scientifically.

In fact, so do the authors. That's why they submitted their work to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

[John Gauger]

185. Peer Review

That's exactly what I was talking about. We cannot prematurely pass judgement on this issue because we are not experts. Beyond common sense, there is little we can do to substantiate the claims. We need to wait for other professionals to formulate their opinions. That's all the laity can do in these cases. I don't like depending entirely on someone else's judgement, but I really am not in any position to examine this study in an educated manner.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

186. LOL.

Maybe you didn't catch my drift.

This paper has been peer-reviewed. It's been accepted. By people who know what they're talking about.

[John Gauger]

188. Oh I'm sorry

I misunderstood. I thought the peer review had not yet occurred. Does it has to be reviewed before it can be published? I thought the review occurred after it had been published, and thus has not yet been executed. No scientists have raised any objections?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

190. The authors write the manuscript...

the authors submit the manuscript to a journal (in this case Lancet), Lancet gives a copy of the manuscript to peers of the author (in this case statisticians who pour over the work looking for errors), the peers who review the manuscript then either approve the article for print or return the manuscript to the authors to make improvements or fix errors. Since the paper is in print, it's been approved by the authors' peers. So no, no scientists raised objections.

It will be seen by more peers now that it's out. It is feasible, but incredibly unlikely, that the paper will be redacted due to errors. But this almost never happens since the peer-review was rigorous in the first place.

This is how science works.

[John Gauger]

195. I thought we were seeing this before the review stage.

This changes things. The study has become much more credible to me with the knowledge that experts have already reviewed and approved it. I have to defer to legitimate authority. Any objections I can raise seem feeble with the knowledge that in all likelihood they have already been addressed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

199. No.

You don't see these kinds of things before the review stage.

Unless it's being reported by tabloids.

[greiner3]

179. I'm in an upper level statistics class at a major university;

My professor and I had a short talk about this study. He had zero problems with the study's set-up and also with using a cluster gathering tool. He did say that he would hold off on official comment until he had read the study fully and examined all the methodologies used. I would be interested in the study's p-value. That is a term that measures the probability of error. The lower the p-value, the less the probability of having random chance as the explanation for the discrepancy. Most polls have an error rate of +/- 3%. That is a well done poll. I'd like to see similar rates for this one also.

[kegler14]

77. I'm no expert and I have my doubts

about whether the number is this high. HOWEVER, I did hear on NPR that virtually all of the deaths recorded from the interviews were documented with death certificates etc. So overlap is probably not a problem.

Whatever the actual number, it's too many.

[butterfly77]

87. SHOCK AND AWE..

what's the count...oh I forgot...collateral damage...a thousand bodies a week can add up and I believe it is over 100k

[ComerPerro]

151. actually, you'd be looking at 3500 bodies each week

and not just during Shock and Awe.

That's the average.

So that's every week.

Which, of course, would imply that death tolls during shock and awe were even higher, would have to be around 5-10 thousand per week.

[butterfly77]

198. that sounds about right that is why I don't believe their ...

numbers on any statistics...

[Viking12]

97. Here's the report...

After the 2004 report I did some extrensve research and learned that the method is sound epidemiological research.

Summary

Background An excess mortality of nearly 100,000 deaths was reported in Iraq for the period March, 2003–September, 2004, attributed to the invasion of Iraq. Our aim was to update this estimate.

Methods Between May and July, 2006, we did a national cross-sectional cluster sample survey of mortality in Iraq. 50 clusters were randomly selected from 16 Governorates, with every cluster consisting of 40 households. Information on deaths from these households was gathered.

Findings Three misattributed clusters were excluded from the final analysis; data from 1849 households that contained 12,801 individuals in 47 clusters was gathered. 1474 births and 629 deaths were reported during the observation period. Pre-invasion mortality rates were 5·5 per 1000 people per year (95% CI 4·3–7·1), compared with 13·3 per 1000 people per year (10·9–16·1) in the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654,965 (392 979–942 636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2·5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601, 027 (426 369–793 663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire.

Interpretation The number of people dying in Iraq has continued to escalate. The proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006, although the actual numbers have increased every year. Gunfire remains the most common cause of death, although deaths from car bombing have increased.

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

[ComerPerro]

158. So its done from projecting

Making projections can sometimes be accurate, but it is often overused, and inappropriately used, resulting in very inaccurate results.


Consider, a Rookie first baseman who hits a home run in each of the first three games of his season with a .625 average (over those three games) could be projected to finish his, lets say 15 year career with 6,000 hits, a .625 batting average, and 2400 career home runs.

[Viking12]

161. No, it's done from cluster sampling...

Did you bother reading the paper?

"The SE for mortality rates were calculated with robust variance estimation that took into account the correlation between rates of death within the same cluster over time.14 The log-linear regression model assumed that the variation in mortality rates across clusters is proportional to the average mortality rate; to assess the effect of this assumption we also obtained non-parametric CIs by use of bootstrapping.13,15 As an additional sensitivity analysis, we assessed the effect of differences across clusters by extending models to allow the baseline mortality rate to vary by cluster."

[ComerPerro]

163. yeah, I did. And what they did was project from one district

over the population.

They took the mortality rate increase in one region, and applied it to the entire population. They assumed that the increase in a mortality rate in one region is the same as in all other regions.


I wasn't aware that over 500 Iraqis were dying every day. Were you?

[Viking12]

164. If you read it, you obviously don't understand it

"The survey team visited 50 randomly selected sites in Iraq, and at each site interviewed 40 households."

and, yes, I was aware that hundreds of Iraqis were dying everyday. The IBC counts deaths reported in the media. Not all or even most deaths are reported in the media.

[ComerPerro]

172. Its impossible that an average of 500 are dying every day

you can't blame a conservative media on that.

And, you might want to back off on your mocking tone. It sounds to me like you don't have much of an understanding of this either, and were just impressed by their credentials and their usage of "big words"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

177. Why is that impossible?

Because you don't want to believe it?

[Viking12]

178. Whatever. Arguments from incredulity aren't very convincing.

But you keep on tryin' :eyes:

I don't have much of an understanding? Coming from someone that calls regression analysis "simple extrapolation" and claims that 50 sites is "one region" I guess I'm not very insulted. While I may not have 'Johns Hopkins' credentials, I've got quite an alphabet behind my name so, no, I'm not really impressed by anyone's credentials.

[ComerPerro]

221. believe whatever the fuck you want

[Zhade]

205. Why is it impossible?

Explain, please - and arguments from incredulity don't count.

[ComerPerro]

219. if you're gonna steal someone else's words

at least do it in another thread.

[struggle4progress]

212. 2,660 Iraqi civilians killed in Sept (in Baghdad alone)

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA and LEE KEATH, Associated Press Writers
Wed Oct 11, 12:39 PM ET

BAGHDAD, Iraq - More than 2,660 Iraqi civilians were killed in the capital in September amid a wave of sectarian killings and insurgent attacks ... according to figures from the Iraqi Health Ministry ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061011/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_death_toll

Extrapolate from that, say: 2.5K x 12 x 3.5 = 30K x 3.5 = 105K dead in Baghdad alone.

Say the Iraqi population is 26 million, Baghdad population 6 million. Scaling
105K x 26/6 = 105K x 13/3 = 35K X 13 = 420K dead, in the ballpark of the limits suggested by the study. The study authors note, incidently, that Baghdad isn't the most violent part of the country.

[ComerPerro]

220. so where are the other 12,500 deaths each month coming from?

[struggle4progress]

223. You presumably mean "the other 5K - 20K" deaths per month,

as the Lancet article estimates a range of something like 330K - 943K civilian deaths, which would be some like 8K-22K per month, and the Baghdad figures are running around 3K per month.

Much as I hate to speculate, it seems possible to me that people are dying in parts of Iraq other than Baghdad. Extrapolating from the Baghdad figures, under the assumption that there ARE other parts of the country, you'll end up with a total necropolis in excess of 400K, which is within the Lancet range.

As evidence that people might die in parts of Iraq other than Baghdad, I couldt cite Fallujah, once a city with population of several hundred thousand.

div class="excerpt"]Top 25 Censored Stories of 2006

... Over the past two years, the United States has conducted two major sieges against Fallujah, a city in Iraq. The first attempted siege of Fallujah (a city of 300,000 people) resulted in a defeat for Coalition forces. As a result, the United States gave the citizens of Fallujah two choices prior to the second siege: leave the city or risk dying as enemy insurgents. Faced with this ultimatum, approximately 250,000 citizens, or 83 percent of the population of Fallujah, fled the city. The people had nowhere to flee and ended up as refugees. Many families were forced to survive in fields, vacant lots, and abandoned buildings without access to shelter, water, electricity, food or medical care. The 50,000 citizens who either chose to remain in the city or who were unable to leave were trapped by Coalition forces and were cut off from food, water and medical supplies. The United States military claimed that there were a few thousand enemy insurgents remaining among those who stayed in the city and conducted the invasion as if all the people remaining were enemy combatants.

Burhan Fasa’a, an Iraqi journalist, said Americans grew easily frustrated with Iraqis who could not speak English. “Americans did not have interpreters with them, so they entered houses and killed people because they didn’t speak English. They entered the house where I was with 26 people, and shot people because didn’t obey orders, even just because the people couldn’t understand a word of English.” Abu Hammad, a resident of Fallujah, told the Inter Press Service that he saw people attempt to swim across the Euphrates to escape the siege. “The Americans shot them with rifles from the shore. Even if some of them were holding a white flag or white clothes over their head to show they are not fighters, they were all shot.” Furthermore, “even the wound people were killed. The Americans made announcements for people to come to one mosque if they wanted to leave Fallujah, and even the people who went there carrying white flags were killed.” Former residents of Fallujah recall other tragic methods of killing the wounded. “I watched them roll over wounded people in the street with tanks… …This happened so many times.”

Preliminary estimates as of December of 2004 revealed that at least 6,000 Iraqi citizens in Fallujah had been killed, and one-third of the city had been destroyed ...

http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2006/index.htm

[BREMPRO]

228. the treatment of civilians in Fallujah is the MO of Shrub&co

tyrannical authoritarianism- put people in impossible circumstances and then when they are killed in the crossfire, claim we gave them proper warning and it was their fault because they didn't follow our instructions and heed our warnings. Fck Bush. Can't the American people including our soldiers see that despite some of the superficial good intentions (mostly empty freedom and democracy slogans), we have become the terrorists?

and what does Shrub have to say today when he has hard questions about his leadership?.......

" I am amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they're willing to -- that there's a level of violence that they tolerate" yes, thanks Mr Bush for the puppet leaders and violent civil war to test our desire to be "FREE".

and the malevolently twisted fear-mongering:

"because in this war if we were to leave early before the job is done, the enemy will follow us here." huh..so instead we stay and inspire a new generation of terrorists who really have a reason to want to kill us. but whatever, at least we can sell more bombs and pretend to be tough and salvage our president's fragile ego.

and:

"if i might say, that's a beautiful suit"

WTF

600,000 dead seems VERY high, but not implausible given level the violence reported. The methodology IS CREDIBLE, but perhaps the Iraqis doctors and interviewees exaggerated in the hope of getting attention to their plight. understandable. Even if it's 200,000 that's 4 times the estimates we've been fed and 200,000 more than was necessary, and a tragedy.

"600,000, or whatever they GUESSED at, is just -- it's not credible. Thank you."

i'd trust their "guessing" over your faith-based propaganda any day

[struggle4progress]

208. They double-checked against death certificates for about 11 of every

12 cases. If you want to scale back by claiming every twelfth case is always an overlap, that brings the 660K down by about 55K to around 600K.

[ComerPerro]

222. you think, though, that they checked 600000 death certificates?

[struggle4progress]

225. If you know a more accurate study, cite it. The work is hard and dangerous

and expensive -- researchers do what they can, within the constraints imposed by real conditions, and then try to honestly say what they accomplished and what uncertainties remain. In the present case, the data strongly suggest civilian casualties numbering hundreds of thousands.

It is one thing to sit at a keyboard and sneer that people, who had the courage and skills to go into a war zone to conduct a study on the mortality effects of the war, did not examine as many death certificates as they might have, if they had had unlimited time and resources and ideal circumstances.

[ComerPerro]

226. don't worry, if this study gets debunked, you and all the others in this

thread will be talking about how these people were neocon jerks who were trying to distract and discredit us, and how this whole story was a Rove creation...

[struggle4progress]

230. I'll take that as your admission you don't know of a more reliable study

Anyone who does research knows that our current knowledge always reflects what can be done at present, under existing time and resource constraints. A better result could be obtained if we were smarter and had more workers and more money: such is life.

And as for your predictions about what I will be saying, if and when better knowledge becomes available, I can only say :boring:

[ComerPerro]

231. And anyone who does any kind of research and statistical work

knows that you can conduct studies in such a way as to produce the exact results you want.

Additionally, surveys and statistics can be framed and manipulated at will.

[struggle4progress]

240. Feel free to post any evidence you have that the authors manipulated data

But I'm sorta suspectin here ya ain't got such

[ComerPerro]

241. and how exactly would I obtain such data?

[Catherine Vincent]

7. How 'bout that good news, repukes?

Happy now?

[SammyWinstonJack]

79. As long as their chimp remains in power, they certainly are happy.

They should waste their beautiful minds :eyes: thinking about the deaths of brown people? Please! :sarcasm:

[Saphire]

96. but, but....faux news says that this is utter bullshit, so it can't be.

[peekaloo]

9. The McLaughlin Group has been quoting Johns Hopkins war dead

figure for quite some time (100,000 +)......but never this high.

[berni_mccoy]

14. The last study was done in 2004...

That's probably the study they were quoting.

[peekaloo]

18. Thanks. n/t

[Zodiak]

23. that study was conducted just before Fallujah

just so we know where the timeline from that study to this one starts

[never_get_over_it]

28. And that 2004 report was October too and I don't remember people

bitching about it being political I remember it being right before the pResidential election - because I told EVERYONE I knew that they could not vote for a man who was responsible for killing 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians

Any Iraqi killed from shock and awe, to the insurgents to the sectarian violence were ALL caused by this ridiculous invasion - and think of the deaths we have heard recently - and do you remember the day that I think 1,000 killed on a bridge after some panic over a bombing - sadly I believe these numbers are probably very close to being correct.

Also the number of our soldier's death is WAY over 2,800 since they only seem to count those soldiers who die on the "battle field" what must the number be for those hit and then later dying at a hospital or on the way or whatever - way higher then 2,800

This makes me so sick I can't stand it

[LynnTheDem]

61. Sorry but that's not true; soldiers who die off the battlefield (ie Iraq)

are indeed counted.

[never_get_over_it]

166. You can decide for yourself

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1654.htm

whether this guy is correct at this site - I don't know - but I do know these freaks in this administration lie about everything - and so I don't find it a bit hard to believe that our military death count is much higher than "they" are reporting...

[LynnTheDem]

182. Thanks but as a member of the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count

I can PROVE they are counted, as can you yourself; go to ICCC and you can see all the troops who died OFF the "battlefield" and yes they are counted.

And no thanks, I don't need to listen to that bullshit from KKK fred barnes.

[never_get_over_it]

217. Can I ask who the hell is Fred Barnes

and what does he have to do with the website I mentioned - I have searched the site as well as I could and can't find his name....

I think there is some Fred Barnes talking head - is that who you are referring to and what does he have to do with any of this?

[LynnTheDem]

224. The Barnes Review; "tbr".

A site not allowed to be linked on DU, if I recall correctly.

And definitely full of shit regarding troops deaths being hidden. I can tell you how barnes got his bullshit; a report from Spain saiod the US was "hiding casualties", meaning, as the report went on to say, the US was NOT MENTIONING the numbers of NON-AMERICAN TROOPS being killed and/or wounded. So mr fred barnes decided to take that Spanish report and spin it into a total lie. I don't like liars; rightwing, leftwing, or upsidedown.

I'm sure IF the Pentagon could get away with not releasing any death notices at all, they would do so. They can't get away with it. Nor could they get away with hiding US troop deaths.

As the wife of a US soldier currently Iraqmired, good luck to ANYONE who would try to hide my husband's death if God forbid it happened. I'll find a link to a DU post from awhile back when this shit fiorst came out, I explain more in there about why hiding deaths is not possible.

[never_get_over_it]

236. Thanks for the info

I don't think they are hiding the deaths - as you say they couldn't - just think for media purposes they classify them as something else....I just get really suspicious that "they" don't let any pictures taken at Dover and let's face it there isn't much this freaking admin won't lie about...

But you obviously know a lot more about this than I do and I'm glad you have provided this info and I'll think good thoughts for your husband

one thing though why would DU not let something be linked to - even if the site is BS I wouldn't like it if DU wouldn't allow us to link to something - you know there is a lot of BS on the internet and we all have to do our best to figure out what is credible and what isn't....

[LynnTheDem]

237. Any sites that are racist, rightwing, etc aren't allowed to be linked

to on DU; there's I believe a list somewhere on the board that says which links are a no-go.

As for the deaths, even reclassifying them doesn't matter, they are still counted in the overall figure, be they called "suicide" or "blue on blue" or "accident" or "hostile"; they are all counted.

There are far too many people -soldiers & their families included- watching like steely-eyed hawks for the Pentagon to try cover-ups on this.

If the Pentagon really wanted to, they could simply refuse to issue death releases at all. But they know damn well if they did that, there'd be howls of outrage especially amongst the military & their families. So they carry on releasing the death notices.

The ban on Dover AFB photos was actually put in place by Clinton, not bush, although Clinton didn't enforce the ban on several occasions. bush has enforced the ban because the video of returning coffins would ramp up Americans' anger against this bullshit war. Not because we could sit and "count" the coffins.

Remember that split screen of GHW Bush laughing it up on one side of the tv screen and coffins returning home on the other? Duhhhbya didn't want Americans to see the results of their voting that stupid evil nasty little prick into office...so don't show them the video!

It's not the TORTURE...it's the PHOTOS!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A55816-2003Oct20

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB152/index.htm

[WindRavenX]

10. Freedom! Forever!

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[babylonsister]

11. How have we made the Iraqui lives better? Please,answer me this. nt

[NOLADEM]

12. So, is it just not possible to deliver bad news because it is politics?

What the fuck?

So you can't deliver bad news to an incumbent during an election year because it is politics?

I hate the political discourse in this country. It is so ridiculous it makes high school cliques seem sane, safe and humane.

2009 cannot come soon enough.

[Terre]

19. I'd rate your comment a 10 if I could

and with this administration it doesn't matter if it's an election year or not. Bad news for them = automatic advantage for Dems = Politicizing by Dems

Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't. . .

[krkaufman]

111. Exactly. So why isn't suppressing bad news also "politics"?

That's just what I was thinking when Bush was bitching about the "recent" NIE report leak, saying its release was political. Well, Georgie, the report was published in April and you've been out there on the stump contradicting the information from the report for the last 5+ months, so couldn't your suppressing the report and lying about the effects and state of the Iraq war be considered political?

p.s. Another example, from the hundreds available... the NY Times suppressing their story about warrantless wiretapping before the 2004 election. Wasn't the NYTimes playing politics by keeping the story quiet, choosing not to reveal information that implicated the President in possibly illegal activity?

[Imagevision]

165. Because the US. must always appear the good guyz

[LostInAnomie]

15. There were only about 30 million Iraqis when we invaded.

That would be equivalent to 6,550,000 Americans being killed.

No wonder they hate us.

[dalaigh lllama]

43. Not even that. More like 24 million

According to this archived page:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/maps/index.html

So that's the equivalent of 8,187,500 Americans being killed. That'd be like every state in the union losing 163,750 family members, friends, and neighbors. It's just...unreal.

[krkaufman]

114. Right. Unbelievable numbers if extrapolated to current US population

Assumptions...
pre-war Iraq population = 24 million
current US population = 300 million

Iraqi fatality estimate (latest Lancet) = 655,000
Iraqi refugee estimate = 1.1 million

US equivalents...
US fatality equivalent = 8.19 million
US refugee equivalent = 13.75 million

[threadkillaz]

16. You can't spin death.

FCK!

We are sorry Iraq for what the leaders (of some) have done.

[dailykoff]

20. G*E*N*O*C*I*D*E

That's what is being committed in our names for the benefit of Big Oil and PNAC.

Evil, evil, evil. This deeply discredits every one of us whether we voted for these psychopaths or not.

[fooj]

53. Yes. It certainly does.

I feel so ashamed.

[malaise]

56. Bingo!! n/t

[butterfly77]

88. Now their policy is to make sure that the people ...

in Korea will starve at a faster pace...ie, sanctions etc...

[kurth]

21. Bush has killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein ever did

And Bush has killed more Americans than Osama bin Laden ever did.

[Stockholm]

46. Mindboggling but appears to be true

Good post Kurth!

[Frazzled Educator]

22. 655,000 have been killed. How many wounded or disfigured?

I wouldn't be surprised if the total number of dead/wounded was well over 2 million.

Sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick.

All over a lie.

[bdamomma]

162. Welcome to DU Frazzled Educator

:hi:

Right, all over a lie. Sickening absolutely sickening.

[brettdale]

24. I remember the first year and a half of the war

The international media and the independent media were saying between 30 thousand and 100 thousand iraqis civilians had died and CBS said that was wrong the death toll was only between 3000 and 6000 civilans.

[Robbien]

29. That is what I remember also

There was a door to door study done at that time with the death toll being over 100,000. I can easily believe this 650,000 figure now with all the violence that has happened since that time.

[Erika]

25. I have read on so many right wing sites the more ragheads dead the better

It has truly sickened me. Some of the right wingers call them towel heads, but the hate object is the same. The more dead, the better is their message.

Since W refuses to stop the carnage or speak against the right wing pundits like Rushbo, Savage, Coultergeist, Ingraham, etc., I suspect he takes the advice of Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson, and Falwell in celebrating their deaths.

They better not knock on my door to spread their "Christian" gospel or GOP beliefs.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

27. I was engaged in a brief debate today about terrorism

We agreed that radical fundamentalism is a problem. But his solution was that the Muslims, like the Japanese in WWII, needed to be "smacked down." Not terrorists, but all Muslims, he argued, because their religion is fanaticism and there can be no dialogue.

His final answer was that we put them (all Muslims, wherever they are) in internment camps until they are ready to "assimilate back into society."

I am not making this up, he really suggested that.

[Erika]

30. That is W's legacy

Pure hate as ruled by theocratic Christians and OK'd by his pundit henchmen(women).

[Erika]

31. I will never forget the 13 year old Iraqi boy with his limbs blown

off in our shock and awe campaign against an innocent populace who was never a threat to us. His image haunts me in a hope that we can get rid of W and once again bring peace to the world because we have humanitarian concerns as our #1 priority and the world trusts us to do so.

W has blown any and all trust.

[LynnTheDem]

64. And what does he suggest we do with radical fundamentalism?

Christian radical fundamentalism, that is.

Should we put all christians in internment camps until they are ready to "assimilate back into society."?

[RevolutionStartsNow]

90. I brought that up

He had an argument that Islam is the only religion where there is no forgiveness, and thtat every Muslim is a ticking bomb (not sure if he meant literally or figuratively, really he's that crazy).

I reminded him of the very unforgiving God of fundamentalst Christians.

He thinks because he's been to the Middle East and has seen "how women are treated," he knows all about Islam. Which is ironic because in his personal life he's a real sexist.

[LynnTheDem]

183. What's sad is that in FACT women were not treated badly in Iraq.

Not under Hussein, they weren't.

They are now.

Under bushica.

And how typical of ignorant people to taint an entire religion/race/species et al with the brush of a handful of lunatics.

Can't argue with the mentally impared, and wilfull ignorance is mentally impared.

[John Gauger]

191. Not any worse then men

You can't really say that they were not treated badly, just that they were not treated in a discriminatory manner. It's not easy living under a sanctions regime that puts Saddam Hussein in absolute control of all food and medicine in the entire country. Not to mention that days where the USAF and RAF dropped no bombs on Iraq were few and far between for a period of twelve years.

[LynnTheDem]

193. They, men & women in Iraq, were certainly far better off on all counts

under Hussein than they have been/are under bushica.

That's a tragic fact.

[John Gauger]

197. But now they are free! They no longer suffer under the yoke of oppression

Don't you love freedom?

If this is the price of freedom, I'll pass. This is would be a case where the cure is worse than the disease. Except that they really aren't any more free, so it can't really be said to have been a cure, can it?

[LynnTheDem]

63. But don't compare bush to Hitler!

Slaughtering Jews = evil, bad, satanic.

Slaughtering Iraqis = good, the more the better.

That's the difference, say rightwingnuts.

Wonder if God sees a difference.

[hobbit709]

71. Some of the right wingers call them towel heads

If they are going to be racist asses, the least they can do is get the terminology right. Arabs are ragheads, Hindus are towelheads.:sarcasm:

[berni_mccoy]

32. This is going to be a MAJOR headline... it's all over the papers and sites

now:

http://news.google.com/news?&rls=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wn&ncl=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html&hl=en

[wtmusic]

33. This sounds like bullshit

from 12,000 reports they extrapolate to 655,000? On any statistical yardstick that is a weak, weak basis.

[TheMadMonk]

48. From 1002 persons surveyed they extrapolate to...,

300 odd million on virtually a dailiy basis.

And guess what? Pollsters manage to get within a couple of percentage points of reality nearly all the time.

The questions are a little more complex than "D or R mate?" which would explain the +/- 20 odd percent margin of error. However, barring some overlooked major flaw in the methodology of the researchers I'd call the figures very credible and not at all weak.

[wtmusic]

121. apples to oranges

In the US pollsters have the luxury of conducting a nearly random sample among a wide variety of participants, as opposed to contacting people in a country where safe travel is virtually impossible.

American pollsters are asking questions of personal preference (which are by definition 100% accurate) as opposed to the confirmation of facts, without any independent verification.

The estimate is an order of magnitude above iraqbodycount.org, which lists all civilian deaths reported in the media. One would expect the number to be much higher--but not THAT much higher.

The timing is suspect, as was the timing of the last estimate put forth by this group (just before the Nov 2004 elections).

Sounds like bullshit to me. What I'm reading on this thread are a lot of people who believe the numbers because they want to believe the numbers (a tendency which, ironically, is what got us into the war in the first place). Junior is a cold-blooded murderer, a war criminal. But overinflated figures accomplish nothing towards bringing him to justice.

All that said, it's hard to know without details. We'll both have a better idea tomorrow.

[ProfessorGAC]

133. Couldn't Be More Wrong

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.
The Professor

[wtmusic]

137. Hopefully you provide more foundation for the opinions you offer

your students. Either that, or they deserve their money back.

[ProfessorGAC]

141. And You've Paid How Much?

Oh Yeah! Nothing. This isn't a lecture in applied mathematics. If that's what you want, move to Chicago. $300 per credit hour ought to do it. I'm not going to provide a lecture in stat theory on a discussion board. I have neither the time nor the inclination.

You believe what you want. You'll still be wrong if you don't change your mind.
The Professor

[John Gauger]

181. Claims presented without evidence may be dismissed without

evidence. You have just refused to explain why this individual is wrong but still maintain that he/she is wrong. If you wish to maintain credibility, I suggest that when you are asked for evidence or reasoning you either present evidence or reasoning or retract your assertion. I have my doubts about this study, but I am not going to let an offhand dismissal from you settle the matter. Suppose I say that the surveyors' methods are sound. Now whom are readers to believe? I have presented equally persuasive evidence, but I am still wrong.

On edit: I have read the previous exchange a second time and I am now confused as to whether you are supporting the study or not. Either way, my criticism of your unfounded assertions stands.

[rinsd]

153. "+/- 20 odd percent margin of error"

"However, barring some overlooked major flaw in the methodology of the researchers I'd call the figures very credible and not at all weak."

You do realize a 20% MOE is in itself a huge flaw don't you?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

187. if a 20% MOE is a huge flaw...

what's the real margin of error?

[Bjorn Against]

202. 20% MOE is not a "flaw"

You have to remember this study is not the same as the polls we read on Congressional races, it uses a very different methodology and so the margin of error is going to be much larger. You can not possibly expect them to get a 3% MOE in a study of this sort, there are far more factors in play in this study than in most the polls you are used to reading. When you are dealing with an issue so complex a 20% MOE is really not that bad.

Even if the number is 20% less than the 600,000+ this study suggests that still sits in the neighborhood of half a million people, which is a huge number.

[mhatrw]

52. What do you know of statistics?

12,000 is huge statistical sample size.

[Imagevision]

81. This sounds like bullshit? - No, Bush sounds like Bullshit

[Imagevision]

86. Could the pentagons' US. troop numbers dead/wounded be phoney?

[wtmusic]

123. You bet

Maybe they're both phoney.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

124. No. The Pentagon doesn't release those as numbers.

That the Pentagon is lying about US casualties is a tin-foil hat thing that comes up fairly regularly and gets smacked down each time.

The Pentagon releases the names of US military killed in Iraq, but does NOT release a numberical accounting. The numbers are kept by anti-war peace groups.

If you think the Pentagon is lying, then all you have to do is find ONE US military person who has been killed in Iraq that is not on the list and you will prove them to be liars.

[LynnTheDem]

196. Dead; no. Wounded, yes.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

125. Are you a statistician?

Because the paper was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. If you've got a legitimate complaint, I'm sure they'd like to hear it.

[wtmusic]

126. It hasn't been published anywhere yet

It comes out tomorrow. Anyone who isn't suspicious of numbers which are 6x higher than previous estimates isn't thinking straight. They're believing what they want to believe. Suspending logic.

We'll all have a more informed opinion tomorrow.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

127. LOL.

I guess people believe what they want to believe, regardless of the evidence.

:rofl:

Btw, the number is three times the number of another peer-reviewed paper, published some two years ago before fighting got much worse.

[wtmusic]

128. Exactly

And what evidence have you seen? That's what I thought.

:rofl: yourself.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

130. Peer-reviewed science.

Are you also a Creationist?

[wtmusic]

134. It truly amazes me

that you can defend to the hilt a study which you've never read. Keep the faith, brother. :crazy:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

135. It truly amazes me...

that you attack peer-reviewed science that you haven't read, simply because you don't like the conclusion.

Actually, no I'm not amazed. It happens all the time- global warming, evolution, holocaust denial...

[Viking12]

155. The report is available...

I spent the morning reading it. It uses well-accepted epidemiological research methods (cluster sampling). It's pretty solid.

Summary
Background: An excess mortality of nearly 100 000 deaths was reported in Iraq for the period March, 2003-September, 2004, attributed to the invasion of Iraq. Our aim was to update this estimate.

Methods: Between May and July, 2006, we did a national cross-sectional cluster sample survey of mortality in Iraq. 50 clusters were randomly selected from 16 Governorates, with every cluster consisting of 40 households. Information on deaths from these households was gathered.

Findings: Three misattributed clusters were excluded from the final analysis; data from 1849 households that contained 12 801 individuals in 47 clusters was gathered. 1474 births and 629 deaths were reported during the observation period. Pre-invasion mortality rates were 5·5 per 1000 people per year (95% CI 4·3-7·1), compared with 13·3 per 1000 people per year (10·9-16·1) in the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654 965 (392 979-942 636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2·5% of thepopulation in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601 027 (426 369-793 663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire.

Interpretation: The number of people dying in Iraq has continued to escalate. The proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006, although the actual numbers have increased every year. Gunfire remains the most common cause of death, although deaths from car bombing have increased.


http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

[wtmusic]

It looks very solid

and very depressing. :(

[moc]

210. There are some concerns. See my post below. nt

[moc]

209. God, I hope the Lancet vetted this appropriately.

I read through the analysis methods quickly (from the full article) and I have some concerns. (By way of background, I have a doctorate in public health from Johns Hopkins; although it's not in epi, I have some epi training and am familiar with some of these methods. However, I'm not an epidemiologist nor do I claim to be.)

My concern has to do with the analysis and whether they used the appropriate methods to account for the complex sampling structure. From what I know, those statistical corrections cannot be handled by STATA (the software used by this study), but require specialized software, specifically something called SUDAAN. The fact they don't mention anything about adjusting for sampling structure is worrisome. My boss is an epidemiologists and an expert in analysis of complex sample surveys. I plan to ask him about this the next time I have a chance.

Peer review is not perfect. It's only as good as the qualifications of the peers to whom the paper is sent. I'd have a higher comfort level if it was published in a true epi journal like AJE or a public health journal like AJPH. I know those journals would have subjected it to rigorous peer review. (For example, I once published a paper in AJPH that used a novel analytic approach. They sent it out for statistical review first before it went out for general review.) I'm not so sure about Lancet. The fact is, this paper should have been reviewed by someone with expertise in complex survey sampling, and there's no guarantee it was. However, given how explosive this is, I hope the Lancet played it extra careful.

[moc]

211. Okay, I feel a little better.

Just read the footnotes and see that Scott Zeger assisted with the analysis. He's the chair of biostats at JHSPH and was one of my profs in grad school. I know he knows what the hell he's doing, so if he blessed this, I'll take his word for it.

[Jean Louise Finch]

229. STATA can handle complex survey design

Hi moc,

It is so funny to read this as I have been slogging through complex sample design in STATA over the last two weeks. STATA 9.0 (and I think 8.0) can indeed handle complex survey design, with the special svy commands. It can take into account multi-stage, stratified and cluster sampling. It's really impressive and quite simple to implement codewise, as long as you know your design.

I've submitted papers to the Lancet before and they indeed will send it out for analytic review before general review if it is a new method that people are unfamiliar with. I suspect that wasn't necessary for this study as the methods they are using are quite familiar to epidemiologists. The context is obviously more difficult, but I think we can be relatively confident (though critically thinking, obviously) in the quality of papers that the Lancet elects to publish. From my own experience, the Lancet is the premiere journal for any public health publication (epi or otherwise). I believe it only sends about 5% of all papers received out for review (the others are rejected flat out), and the revision process is rigorous (and quite painful).

I haven't had time to read the paper yet, but I am keen to see how they explain the complex survey design. I agree with you that they need to address that.

Take care,
Jean Louise

[moc]

234. Thanks so much, Jean Louise.

I must say I'm more and more impressed with STATA the more I hear. My research associate uses it, but I haven't learned it yet. We've been using it for multilevel analyses, and it's a whole lot easier than MlWin. Learning more about STATA is on my "must do" list.

By the way, I don't know if you saw my post below, but when I looked at the paper again, I noted the statistician who advised the project is the chair of biostat at JHSPH. I took some classes with him in grad school and had him advise on some projects after I finished. He's top notch, so I am confident the methods are sound since I know he was involved.

Good to know about that about Lancet. I tend to be a bit leary about some of those top-tiered medical journals because I've seen some real crap published in JAMA. It's like they're more interested in making a splash than publishing sound science. NEJM tends to be a lot stronger, imo. It's good to know Lancet falls more in line with the NEJM end of things.

Thanks again. It's nice hearing from someone with some familiarity with these things.

:hi:

[moc]

207. It's in press. That means it's been accepted by peer review.

Now, other epidemiologists may dispute it once it comes out, but those that did the review were satisfied.

[ProfessorGAC]

129. That's Not True

It depends upon the LaPlacian strata observed. Actually 12,000 is an incredibly huge sample if it only extrapolates to 54 times that.

Think of it this way: In order to match that sort of extrapolation, public opinion surveys would need to have sample sets of about 4 million adults! In this case, the mathematical techniques are different, but the estimation of greater populations from sample sets are related in their statistical underpinnings, no matter the technique applied.
The Professor

[wtmusic]

131. Not comparable to public opinion surveys

see #121

[ProfessorGAC]

132. Yes It Is

I've got the background in mathematics. (MS Applied Mathematics, DePaul Univeristy, 1981) The theoretical underpinnings are identical. They ARE comparable. Your post 121 notwithstanding.

The Professor

[wtmusic]

138. I'm very impressed

Think you could tuck that diploma back in your pants and explain why? :shrug:

[ProfessorGAC]

143. I Did Explain Why

Laplacian theory is very clear in this regard. If you wish to learn more, go to the library. I'm not your teacher. I'm telling you you're wrong. This is a HUGE sample for such an extrapolation.

And, by the way, this isn't an opinion. It's the truth based upon statistical theory.
The Professor

[ComerPerro]

174. You and I opened up a real can of worms

[slaveplanet]

34. An atomic weapon

in a good sized densely populated American city would probably get you a death toll around 650,000.

[banjoterror]

35. Yay, he did it...

Bush finally beat Clinton's record for "President who could cause the most innocent Iraqis to die for no good reason of the decade" award.

[DemonFighterLives]

58. Do you need to bring Clinton into this?

Clinton didn't start no war in Iraq.

[krkaufman]

113. At a minimum, your "for no good reason" qualifier is debatable.

The sanctions were harmful and overlong, but Clinton alone isn't to blame for the sanctions. It is inarguable that Bush *is* to blame for the current Iraq war.

[banjoterror]

144. Just a clarification

I'm not trying to let Bush off the hook. I hate him. And I'm not a "blame Clinton firster." I just came of political age during the Clinton adminisration. I remember him putting over a hundred thousand new cops on the streets. I remember him pushing NAFTA through congress and "ending welfare as we know it." Clinton was a slick and hate worthy leader. The fact that Bush is so far beyond the pale that he makes Clinton look like a saint in retrospect... well that's just a telling fact for me. My original posting on this thread was actually prompted by a memory I have of Albright saying that 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of sanctions was "worth it" in her mind. That's how a not quite a kid anymore who doesn't really remember bush senior or reagan or anything earlier remembers the clintonites. I'm not a freeper or a conservative, and it would be nice if yall here could take off the blinders it seems like you are using sometimes.

[krkaufman]

150. thanks for Albright quote

I'm not sure what blinders you're talking about here. My comment was simply meant as a cautioning that your original statement generalized Clinton's policy as having been implemented "for no good reason."

I believe we're very much on the same page regarding Clinton... did some good, did some relatively bad... and I *do* believe that the Iraq sanctions policy is among one of the evils our country has committed. However, it is arguable whether the sanctions were the lesser of two or more evils, and certainly less destructive than Bush 43's policy.

All that being said, likely only muddying things further, I do want to thank you for the Albright quote. If true, it is most disappointing.

[krkaufman]

154. All generalizations are wrong.

p.s. I also want to express that I found this generalization generally annoying...

... it would be nice if yall here could take off the blinders it seems like you are using sometimes.

On a reread of my earlier post, I think you'll find my criticism was focused solely on the absoluteness of your "for no good reason" comment, and I wasn't castigating you generally for either Clinton criticism or Bush worship.

[banjoterror]

232. Okay

I apologize for making a broad and unfair generalization. My defensiveness was more related to the post before yours which read simply "thanks for bringing clinton into this." The body was, I believe "He didn't start no war," or something to that effect. I felt like that was a sort of ad hominem non-response to the valid point I raised (admittedly less articulately than I could have).

I just think, even here, even right before the election, that we all need to remember that democrats are politicians too.

[John Gauger]

204. I rememer that quote too

I believe it was in Howard Zinn's _A Peoples History of The United States._ I was quite disturbed by it. I had already lost respect for Clinton on corporate matters, but after learning about Waco, Iraq, East Timor, Kosovo, and Sudan I began to think of him much the same way you do.

[Zhade]

206. Hard facts that many don't like to remember.

NT!

[John Gauger]

203. Once he became President he had the ability to lift them.

Thus every death resulting from the sanctions after the day of his first inauguration are on his hands. And it was for no good reason. It doesn't take a genius to realize that channelling all of the food and medicine in a country through the government makes the government much more powerful. Saddam was very good at feeding his people. That's how he kept control; if the Iraqis overthrew Saddam they could not be sure that they would get all of the food they needed.

[banjoterror]

233. nicely put n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

36. So where did Shrub's "about 30,000 I guess" figure come from?

[Erika]

39. All you have to do is to look at this site

www.icasualties.org for what's going on.

[Drops_not_Dope]

54. 12/12/ 05 -- Bush puts deaths of Iraqis at 30,000

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-12-bush-iraq_x.htm

[struggle4progress]

214. BushCo decided at the beginning of the war not to count dead Iraqis.

He's blowing smoke.

[Hippo_Tron]

37. From our compassionate freeper friends

"I was hoping it was true. More dead Muslims means a more peaceful world."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1717264/posts

[Erika]

40. Even if they were innocent women and children

Coultergeist, Rushbo, Savage and Igraham agree. Since W does nothing to silence them and allows his lieutenants to go on their shows, he must agree with them.

How very sick.

[LynnTheDem]

65. "More dead Jews means a more peaceful world"

Nope, I don't see any difference between either remark.

Does Jesus?

[coda]

38. "The predictions of those who opposed this war can be discarded...

Do you remember the predictions?


====

"The predictions of those who opposed this war can be discarded like spent cartridges. You remember them? 'We will kill hundreds of thousands.' 'We will create thousands of new terrorists.' 'The Arab world will rise up and set the region aflame.' Tony Blair and George Bush knew better."

-- Richard Perle, writing in the News of the World, April 13, 2003


=

[Erika]

41. This so sickens me.

How W's pundits like Rushbo, Savage, Ingraham, Hannity, etc can continue on saying they have some sense of morality or humanity defies logic.

They joined W in becoming henchmen to an innocent population.

[Selatius]

45. Richard Perle probably challenged the Johns Hopkins study

That study said 100,000 died as a result of the invasion. That study was done two years ago, though.

[LynnTheDem]

67. Also by richard perle; "cakewalk" and his other infamous bullshit...

"and a year from now I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in baghdad that is named after president bush"
-9/22/03.

SURPRIIIIISE, dickie!

[Botany]

42. Seems high but in fall of 2004 the British Medical Journal Lancet said ..

..... that 100,000 civilian deaths had occurred. Now add to that 2 more years
of war, ethnic cleansing, cholera from dirty water, reduced health care (in many
cases Drs. & nurses have fled), IEDs, and many other factors and the results might very
well be grim.

Operation Iraqi Freedom. Right.

Study by John Hopkins w/ M.I.T. (funding)
We are not talking about a bunch of kooks here.

http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/

just look @ the deaths for 10/10/06

[LynnTheDem]

68. The Lancet said 100,000 MINIMUM, and that likely it was upwards of

200,000.

And they openly state they were extremely conservative using the 100,000 figure.

[Matilda]

44. Iraq Body Count has a total that's close to that.

And I think their methods are careful and if anything, err on the side of caution.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/


"We don't do body counts" - no, because they can't face reality.

[LynnTheDem]

69. Iraq Body Count only counts what the MEDIA reports

They count the numbers of Iraqi dead the media bothers to report.

I'd trust John Hopkins/MTI in The Lancet way beyond what I'd trust the media to report...especially when the media isn't in Iraq reporting much of anything the past couple years.

[struggle4progress]

216. IBC's rules require two (2) independent media reports.

How many people do you know who earned two independent media reports when they died? And how many of Katrina's victims individually got two independent media reports?

[Up2Late]

49. This doesn't really surprise me, I was wondering when the would...

...manage another study.

The last one of this type, which I think was done in 2004, estimated over 100,000 War dead, when "the government" and the non-U.S. press was still only saying 20,000-25,000 War dead.

[flyarm]

50. AP: Iraq to Stop Counting Civilian Dead Wed Dec 10,2003

from my files.,.fly

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/AP_Iraq_to_stop_121003.htm

AP: Iraq to Stop Counting Civilian Dead
Wed Dec 10,2003 2:17 PM ET

By NIKO PRICE, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi Health Ministry officials ordered a halt to a count of civilian casualties from the war and told workers not to release figures already compiled, the head of the ministry's statistics department told The Associated Press on Wednesday.



The health minister, Dr. Khodeir Abbas, denied that he or the U.S.-led occupation authority had anything to do with the order, and said he didn't even know about the survey of deaths, which number in the thousands.



Dr. Nagham Mohsen, the head of the ministry's statistics department, said the order came from the ministry's director of planning, Dr. Nazar Shabandar, who told her it was on behalf of Abbas. She said the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, which oversees the ministry, didn't like the idea of the count either.



"We have stopped the collection of this information because our minister didn't agree with it," she said, adding: "The CPA doesn't want this to be done."

[mhatrw]

51. This AP report is rife with pro-Bush bias.

It literally drips with bias suggesting that we should all dismiss these estimates out of hand as politically motivated and inaccurate. It is a sickeningly biased article.

[rman]

55. The expert who calls it "politics" :

from
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2367626

...
"This is not analysis, this is politics," Cordesman said.
...

---

Anthony Cordesman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Cordesman

Anthony Cordesman holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, specializing in energy issues, the Middle East and North Africa, defense policy, and terrorism and transnational threats. Cordesman also serves as a national security analyst for ABC News.

Previously, Cordesman served as national security assistant to Senator John McCain of the Senate Armed Services Committee and in a variety of high level posts within the US Department of Defense, which earned him the Department of Defense's Distinguished Service medal. Cordesman has also been a professor in national security studies at Georgetown University and a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars at the Smithsonian. His publications have dealt with a variety of topics, such as energy and defense policy, the lessons of modern war, and threats posed to vital infrastructure by terrorism. He has been featured on a variety of media outlets such as National Public Radio and the Financial Times, due particularly to his expertise concerning the Middle East.
...

[leftchick]

59. Note Cordesman, a war whore's comments on this study

<snip>

An accurate count of Iraqi deaths has been difficult to obtain, but one respected group puts its rough estimate at closer to 50,000. And at least one expert was skeptical of the new findings.

"They're almost certainly way too high," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election.

"This is not analysis, this is politics," Cordesman said.

:grr:

[DemonFighterLives]

62. Someone tell this bushbot that

I got his politics right here!
:mad:

[leftchick]

72. juan cole handled him well in his coluimn today.....

Then Anthony Cordesmann told AP that the timing and content of the study were political. But is he saying that 18,000 households from all over Iraq conspired to lie to Johns Hopkins University researchers for the purpose of defeating Republicans in US elections this November? Does that make any sense? And, if Cordesmann has evidence that the authors and editor set their timetable for completion and publication according to the US political calendar, he should provide it. If he cannot, he should retract.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/10/655000-dead-in-iraq-since-bush.html

:)

[exlrrp]

74. "It's Political" is their answer to EVERYTHING

That way they don't have to answer the questions or face the issues.
See also: "I haven't read the book/report/article yet"
Invoking 9/11 doesn't work anymore

[leftchick]

75. "I don't recall"

most ofetn used.

[sui generis]

85. without a doubt, out and proud, it is political

because it's politics that led to the invasion of Iraq and the death of those people. But it can be more than one thing at the same time in the world of adults, so at the same time it is also an astonishing tragedy, and a valid reason that when this nightmare is over every single participant in our government who knew better should be in a tidy little cell at The Hague for the rest of their days.

[DemonFighterLives]

235. thanks, Cordesmann doesn't care about the dead

Only that he gets his catapulting check.
The total seems high of course, but the bushie genocidal crusade is quite capable of producing those numbers. All dubby ever does is smirk and laugh, even about our soldiers dying daily.
:dem:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

99. How many deaths?

Assuming for the moment that the number is closer to 50,000 as Mr. Cordesman seems to suggest, that is STILL a lot of people (at least in my book). HOW MANY dead people will it take for something to be seen as "wrong" or, dare I say, as a "mistake"? Unfortunately, I don't expect that the numbers of dead Iraqis will matter much to Bushco except in terms of how they can best manage public perception about the numbers (whatever they are) and how the GOP can escape political destruction at the polls. They obviously don't care much otherwise since they haven't been counting since 2003 (or at least making the numbers public). Also, Mr. Cordesman can't be naive enough to honestly believe that stories are never published (or withheld) for political reasons, can he? ;-)

[struggle4progress]

213. Cordesman's field is military strategy. He's talking outside his area.

[DemonFighterLives]

60. dubby is so proud that he beat Daddies numbers

Poppy should be so proud and the cash has to be rolling in.
The crime family has proven once again how ruthless they are.
:hide:

[Jcrowley]

66. An Excerpt

Our estimate of excess deaths is far higher than those reported in Iraq through passive surveillance measures. 1,5 This discrepancy is not unexpected. Data from passive surveillance are rarely complete, even in stable circumstances, and are even less complete during conflict, when access is restricted and fatal events could be intentionally hidden. Aside from Bosnia, 21 we can find no conflict situation where passive surveillance recorded more than 20% of the deaths measured by population-based methods. In several outbreaks, disease and death recorded by facility-based methods underestimated events by a factor of ten or more when compared with populationbased estimates. 11,22–25 Between 1960 and 1990, newspaper accounts of political deaths in Guatemala correctly reported over 50% of deaths in years of low violence but less than 5% in years of highest violence. 26 Nevertheless, surveillance tallies are important in monitoring trends over time and in the provision of individual data, and these data track closely with our own findings (figure 4). Mortality rates from violent causes have increased every year post-invasion. By mid-year 2006, 91 violent deaths had occurred in 6 months, compared with 27 post-invasion in 2003 and 77 in 2004, and 105 for 2005, suggesting that violence has escalated substantially. The attributed cause of these deaths has also changed with time. Our data show that gunfire is the major cause of death in Iraq, accounting for about half of all violent deaths. Deaths from air strikes were less commonly reported in 2006 than in 2003–04, but deaths from car explosions have increased since late 2005. The proportion of violent deaths attributed to coalition forces might have peaked in 2004; however, the actual number of Iraqi deaths attributed to coalition forces increased steadily through 2005. Deaths were not classified as being due to coalition forces if households had any uncertainty about the responsible party; consequently, the number of deaths and the proportion of violent deaths attributable to coalition forces could be conservative estimates. Distinguishing criminal murders from anti-coalition force actions was not possible in this survey. Across Iraq, deaths and injuries from violent causes were concentrated in adolescent to middle age men. Although some were probably combatants, a number of factors would expose this group to more risk—eg, life style, automobile travel, and employment outside the >10 violent deaths per 1000 per year 2–10 violent deaths per 1000 per year <2 violent deaths per 1000 per year No clusters *Uncertain estimate (<3 clusters, no prior survey) Najaf* Muthanna Basrah Babylon Wassit* Missan Kerbala Qadissiya* Thi Qar Najaf Kerbala Basrah Nasiriyah Figure 3: Death rates due to violent causes per Governorate Mortality rates in Governorates with fewer than three clusters were confirmed with 2004 survey data; estimates for provinces with fewer than three clusters that could not be confirmed are potentially uncertain due to the small sample size.

[Avalux]

70. The Lancet is a reputable medical journal.

This study wasn't "thrown together" and rushed to print for the election. Anyone who says so is full of crap. I'm going to try to read the whole thing later today; it's my guess critics screaming politics won't even be able to understand the statistical data in it.

[katinmn]

73. We need to neuter Bush in 27 days, then

impeach him, then try him for war crimes, then torture him with unending lectures by Chomsky, Chavez, Kucinich, McKinney and Helen Thomas.

[Junkdrawer]

78. Pacification...

I posted this a while back...

NOTE: The following is just a guess based on many, many events that seem to suggest it as a possible BushCo strategy. It is extremely brutal and I hope I'm wrong.

Pretend that you have absolutely no morals whatsoever and that your goal is to capture and exploit the world’s largest underexploited oil reserves - Iraq. You don’t want to start the pumping while your Saudi business partners still can meet demand, so let’s say your time frame to start pumping is 5 to 10 years out. Your problems are:

1.) The population of the country is 65%+ Shia, many with links to Iran and many more decidedly Anti-American.
2.) Immediate installation of a Pro-American puppet regime would be opposed, not only by Iraqis, but also by most of the world, especially Iran, Russia and China.
3.) Oil fields and pipelines are easy sabotage targets for any well-manned insurgency.

So invading with a sufficient force to bring post-invasion stability brings a Shiite regime with a pro-Iranian tilt. Joy, just what you don’t want. So what do you do? Try this little three phase plan:

Phase I:
Invade with a force sufficient to overcome Saddam’s weakened defenses, but insufficient to create stability. Leave plenty of weapon caches lying about because you want an insurgency. Why? Because an insurgency provides cover for:
1.) The expulsion of the U.N.
2.) The expulsion of unfriendly media
3.) The building of permanent military bases
The insurgency also creates the core of a brutal, professional colonial army – something you’ll need for Phase III.

Phase II:
Instigate a civil war and then retreat to the bases you built in Phase I. You can, at this point, talk about an “orderly withdrawal” because you really just need a small core of provocateurs to keep the civil war raging. This is when the real killings occur – the pacification if you will. The idea is to reduce the population of anyone who will oppose your later occupation. The magnitude of the killings during this phase will be so severe that there will actually be cries for your return, both at home and within the international community. See Bosnia.

Phase III:
Remember those military bases and the brutal, professional colonial army you built during Phase I? Now is when you use them to bring about your actual goal: a puppet government propped up by a brutal military presence. You can refer anyone who complains at this point to the atrocities of Phase II and suggest that your forced stability is the lesser of two evils. Oh, by the way, you can pump the oil now.

Well, there you have it. As I said, I hope I’m wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1503947

Looks like I wasn't wrong...

[bullwinkle428]

80. Will anyone in the press have the stones to ask Il Douchebag about this

in the next press conference?

[butterfly77]

82. Did they count the many who were killed in the ..

SHOCK AND AWE were these people counted, oh ...I forgot they were collateral damage...

[Arkansas Granny]

83. Here are some statistics that I found from the Brookings Institution.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20061001.htm

Seems to be lots of info here on military and civilian casualties.

[Evergreen Emerald]

84. we still don't know how many died in Katrina

This administration has an interest in keeping the truth from us: from Bush's military service (or lack there of) to Iraqi death toll. I have often wondered if we would ever know the truth of how many Bush killed to "liberate" them (his fourth excuse for invading Iraq)?

The MSM seems to be airing more information than in recent history. Perhaps the truth will come out eventually.

The mantra: "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" gives an indication about how much Bush (or any of the neo-cons who voted for him) truly care about the people of Iraq. They are willing to openly and arrogantly use the lives of Iraq men women and children as human shields and targets as they brag about how we can hide behind them to avoid the death of OUR citizens.

[butterfly77]

91. We will also find out about the lies ..

concerning their statisitics about the economy,crime, healthcare etc...

[leesa]

89. And yet some here say the Iranian leader is the madman...or Chavez

is the madman...or even Saddam...who killed far fewer than Bush.

[Virginia Dare]

92. Who cares about that?

Bush, Cheney and all their good buddies are getting rich, that's all that matters. :grr: :cry:

[Strawman]

93. I'll trust a Johns Hopkins doctor publishing in a peer reviewed journal

Over some spin doctor at CSIS.

The right wing spin the writer in this story parrots is absurd. The bias in favor of the low estimate is outrageous.

[mtnsnake]

94. An average of 500 Iraqis are killed every day

This morning CNN attributed this fact to the John Hopkins study.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

95. This actually made the front page of CNN.com

I'm stunned.

[leesa]

98. But..But..MASS GRAVES!! GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE!!

Whoooooo's your favorite war criminal?!?

[SpreadItAround]

100. Jeez, who cares?

It's just a bunch of ragheads in the middle of the desert...

No one said freedom was free.

:sarcasm:

[qanda]

101. I hope you're kidding

[SpreadItAround]

105. Sorry, I am...

...I thought the eye roll emoticon conveyed that.

I'll add the :sarcasm: one

[qanda]

108. No problem

I thought you were, but just wanted to make sure. Yes, the sarcasm tag does a much better job. BTW, welcome to DU. Looks like you'll fit in very well around here.

[SpreadItAround]

115. thanks, glad to be aboard

[oc2002]

102. Sorry, but most Americans could care less. could not care even if where

Katrina comes to mind. you think most Americans could give a shit about Iraq?

If it does not effect them, and thier little world, its not more than a statistic.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

104. Agreed, but that sucks

I remember having a English teacher in high school and it was the day after a bunch of people (not Americans) died in a major jet crash.

He spent the whole period talking to us about how any untimely death of any person, American or not, is significant and tragic, and should be mourned.

If we killed a single Iraqi man woman or child in this illegitimate war, it's 1 too many.

[Imagevision]

103. Why would anyone believe pentagon numbers of dead US. troops?!!

They claim a relatively smallnumber of Iraqi's got dead because of Bush's phoney war, why would they report the true number of americans killed? -

[LynnTheDem]

200. Because a cover-up is not possible, that's why.

Now the Pentagon could probably cover up a hanadful of US soldiers' deaths. But the risk for doing so, to cover up maybe a dozen deaths? Not worth it, and they know it.

[ecstatic]

107. Like someone else said-GENOCIDE. Be prepared for more 'terrorism'

you take out an entire generation, expect retaliation. I fear for the future of this country and it's just terrible how many Iraqis had to die over this farce.

[bdamomma]

109. these deaths mean nothing to bush and his cabal

NOTHING AT ALL. They are "ethic cleansing" the country.

[IWantAChange]

112. listening to Dubyha's news conference .....

if this is the commander in chief small wonder we have absolutely no idea how many civilian causalities there are in Iraq - if the top is disconnected from reality what can be expected of the mechanism underneath him??

:hurts:

[stepnw1f]

136. Congratulations Bush/GOP!!! (nt)

[DUBYASCREWEDUS]

140. pResident Dimwit

dismissed the total saying it was too high and inaccurate. What a complete and utter Asshole. Just goes to show you the "compassionate" side of the Moron in Chief.

[Jcrowley]

145. Key Points

Key points of the study include:

• Estimated 654,965 additional deaths in Iraq between March 2003 and July 2006

• Majority of the additional deaths (91.8 percent) caused by violence

• Males aged 15-44 years accounted for 59 percent of post-invasion violent deaths

• About half of the households surveyed were uncertain who was responsible for the death of a household member

• The proportion of deaths attributed to coalition forces diminished in 2006 to 26 percent. Between March 2003 and July 2006, households attributed 31 percent of deaths to the coalition

• Mortality data from the 2006 study reaffirm 2004 estimates by Hopkins researchers and mirrors upward trends measured by other organizations

• Researchers recommend establishment of an international body to calculate mortality and monitor health of people living in all regions affected by conflict

The mortality survey used well-established and scientifically proven methods for measuring mortality and disease in populations. These same survey methods were used to measure mortality during conflicts in the Congo, Kosovo, Sudan and other regions. For the Iraq study, data were collected from 47 randomly selected clusters of 40 households each. At each household selected, trained Iraqi surveyors collected data on the number of births and deaths that occurred in the household between January 1, 2002, and June 30, 2006. To be considered a household member, the deceased had to have lived in the home at least three months prior to death. When interviewers asked to see a death certificate at households reporting a death, it was presented in 92 percent of instances. The survey recorded 1,474 births and 629 deaths among 12,801 people surveyed. The data were then applied to the 26.1 million Iraqis living in the survey area.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15267.htm

[chchchanges]

146. Even if the figure is too high...

Almost seems that for the GOPedophile spin doctors, the low ballpark figure of 40,000 is A-OK.

So let me get this straight, if 3000 people die in American soil. And out of those, not all being American so 2000-odd Americans die. It is OK for the USA to bomb the heck out of Afghanistan, and invade a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and in the process killing 20-times more people than in 9/11 in Iraq alone. Since Iraq is about 10x smaller, this makes the adjusted figure if we take the USA as a baseline... of around 200-times more relative people killed.

It would be interesting to see the Iraq death rate under Hussein, and under US occupation. Since one of the favourite excuses by repugs up to a year ago or so was: how terrible Hussein was to the Iraqi people and why we had to go there. So if it turns out that GWBush is killing a similar rate of Iraqis than Hussein, should Americans for once in their god-damned life get off their tussies and do the right thing? Not really holding my breath here....

So regardless of the 300K dead figure, how come 40K is somewhat acceptable. How come no ONE in the mass media said, "wait a minute"? Is not OK for other countries to kill ~3K Americans but its A-OK for the US to kill 10/20-times that figure w/o having to face an external or internal judgment?

[twaddler01]

147. Why is it "controversial"?

Unless the numbers are too low :eyes:

Does it really matter anyway? We went to war for lies...many people died.

[Felix Mala]

148. Most Ironic Statement Trained Chimp has ever made:

"I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they’re willing to — you know, that there’s a level of violence that they tolerate."

This is his quote about the estimates and adding that he's sticking to the 30,000 figure.

Gee-I wonder if he would deliberately let a cat or dog out on a busy expressway so he could be inspired by it's efforts to avoid getting hit?

Survival is an easy choice when it's the only choice you've been given.

[oasis]

152. The Chimperor dismissed this report at his press conference. He was

asked what he thought the real numbers were and he blew the reporter off.

[JFN1]

157. 665,000 killed

and about $665 billion spent to do it, so we're spending, what, about $1 billion for each death?

[bdamomma]

160. bush said he believed that number is not credible

what a fuckhead. 655,000 more to add to bush's dead count of innocent people dying, add that number to Katrina, 9/11, and our soldiers who have died.

[Emillereid]

167. Given the differences in population numbers, the 655,000 would be like

the US suffering almost 8 million additional deaths!

thre should be nothing particularly 'controversial' about this study -- they used tried and true epidemiological techniques.

The BUSHITS have even more to answer for -- the world truly can't wait to throw these bums out!

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

169. died = slaughtered like animals..

rumsfeld.. i will see you in hell motherfucker

[cassiepriam]

170. The eventual death count may rival Hitler's?

War injuries, depleted uranium damage, destruction of the health care system and food chain, etc etc

And deaths in Afghanistan, possibly Iran, North Korea.

Bush has two years left. Who knows how many else he will kill?

[ComerPerro]

176. Yeah, in 35 years...

[stepnw1f]

201. Bush's Supporters Should Hope Not to Be Around Then (nt)

[Bjorn Against]

192. Which expert is this?

NEW YORK - A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates. The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics."

It seriously pisses me off when the media pulls this kind of shit. WHO IS THIS EXPERT? They could be quoting Karl Rove without telling us.

This is ten times worse than the "some people say" crap that they pull because it leads people to believe that these people truly are experts rather than just "some people" but they are not required to back their expertise up with anything. I can virtually guarantee that their "expert" is a Republican political operative, but by hiding the persons identity they will not give us any opportunity to find out how this person comes up with their conclusion.

This is propaganda meant to downplay 600,000 deaths, the corporate media better be ashamed of itself.

[entanglement]

194. Very sad news, I'm speechless

To those mocking this study and its findings: Have you not a shred of decency or humanity in you?

[mom cat]

218. Bush has insatiable bloodthirst! He MUST go!

[myrna minx]

238. How can we justify this?

:cry: I can't even fathom this number. This is liberation? :cry:

[On the Road]

239. I Heard Les Roberts Interviewed on NPR (the Diane Rehm Show)

He was extremely credible. The methodology used is standard for this kind of mortality study. It was used in Bosnia and Kosovo, and by the Bush administration itself in Afghanistan.

The sense of disbelief comes partly from the fact that it is measuring the increase in death from all causes -- disruption of medical care, street crime, exposure to the elements(among refugees), contaminated drinking water, increased infant mortality from sick mothers, etc. In 92% of cases, researchers were shown death certificate.

This is the most detailed of the eight studies done. Two studies actually had higher numbers. 2,000 households is a good sized sample, but because they were clustered in 50 locations, the variance is higher -- the confidence interval is between 400k and 900k. The only possible flaw I can see would be the statistical analysis, but as Moc noted in post #211, an authority in biostats was consulted.

You can get a podcast of the program NPR Podcasts or hear a rebroadcast at 9PM tonight (Thu) here. It would behoove anyone swayed by know-nothing claims of Republicans to consult the source.

[Jcrowley]

242. kicking

[Jcrowley]

243. Violence forces 1,000 Iraqis a day to flee homes: U.N.

Violence forces 1,000 Iraqis a day to flee homes: U.N.
Wed Oct 11, 1:49 PM ET

GENEVA (Reuters) - Over 1,000 Iraqis are fleeing their homes each day because of rampant violence, and revenge killings are "totally out of control," the U.N.'s top humanitarian official said on Wednesday.

Jan Egeland, U.N. Under-Secretary General, told a news conference that sectarian violence and military operations had forced over 315,000 to flee their homes in the past eight months.

"Some 9,000 have been displaced every week ... even worse, perhaps 100 people are killed every day," he said.

The violence was related to sectarian killings, with Sunni Muslims being forced to flee Shi'a Muslim areas and Shias fleeing Sunni strongholds, he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061011/wl_nm/iraq_un_violence_dc_1

[Keepontruking]

244. Deaths

Can Bush and Cheney and Rice go live over ther for a month or
two please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Circus Girl