UK rejects estimate of 655,000 Iraqi deaths

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.khaleejtimes.ae/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2006/October/theworld_October465.xml§ion=theworld

LONDON - British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office rejected as inaccurate on Thursday a study that found about 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the March 2003 US-led invasion and later violence.

“The ... figure is an order of magnitude higher than any other figure. It’s not one we believe to be anywhere near accurate and that is not in any way to downplay the seriousness of the security situation in Iraq,” Blair’s spokesman said.

On Wednesday, US President George W. Bush said the findings of the study, published in medical journal The Lancet, were not credible. The Iraqi government, which puts the total Iraqi death toll since the war started at 40,000, also called the report unbelievable.

Blair was Bush’s closest ally during the Iraq war and Britain still has about 7,200 troops in Iraq.

[fooj]

1. And this surprises WHO?

C'mon...it's Tony the Poodle. I wouldn't really expect any different. Funny how they accepted the figures from Kosovo and Somalia, eh? Those figures were produced by the same study.

[whistle]

2. I think it is time to make the study public so the 655,000 number ...

...and how the study authors came up with that number can be compared to the official estimates which come from three highly biased sources, George Bush, Tony Blair and the Iraqi puppet government.

[Phredicles]

3. Apart from the 30,000 figure the Dear Leader pulled out of his ass,

has there been ANY government estimate of Iraqi casualties, ever?

[spanone]

4. So george & tony, what are your figures?

[Benhurst]

5. Breaking news: Bush's partner in crime dismisses findings.

Flush :hurts: the nast little turd.

[madokie]

6. to the dog ass brothers counting dead Iraqi's would be compared to

counting the cows we slaughter here in America. :shrug:

[ThomCat]

7. Hmm... Standard scientific methodology, or Bush/Blair...

Who are you going to believe? Who do you think has the more accurate estimate?x(

[lakeguy]

8. The ... figure is an order of magnitude higher than any other figure.

oh, except for the only other scientific study conducted that said the total was 100 to 200k 2+ years ago.

i suppose only the guesses count and anyone with real numbers is a liar.