Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 184

• 0%

  bobo-in-texas8 months, 4 weeks ago

  "In other words, the Lancet study could hardly be more unreliable. Yet it was trumpeted by the political left because it fit a narrative that they wanted to believe. And it wasn't challenged by much of the press because it told them what they wanted to hear. The truth was irrelevant."

  as in so many other cases, the Left certainly wasn't going to let pesky facts get in the way of the "Truth". My only question is how many will continue to cling to the fabricated and discredited numbers?

  Reply

  47 Replies

  • 0%

    libsRfunny8 months, 4 weeks ago

    "And it wasn't challenged by much of the press because it told them what they wanted to hear. The truth was irrelevant."

    Yeah, there are a LOT of lazy reporters out there.

    Reply

    31 Replies

    • 0%

      Candida8 months, 4 weeks ago

      I don't know whether the Lancet study is reliable or not, but there is no solid evidence in this article that proves that it isn't. This is all just innuendo. Even the most recent estimate of 135,000 or so is just an estimate because nobody is counting the dead. As far as I remember, the Iraqi Government gave strict instructions after the Lancet study to all hospitals, funeral homes, etc. to withhold all information from anybody trying to count the dead.

      Reply

      25 Replies

      • 0%

        1-2-Oscar8 months, 4 weeks ago

        You don't "remember" very well, Candida, because you never had reliable information to begin with. Your comment here is more reflex than insight.

        Reply

        23 Replies

        • 0%

          ybdogsct8 months, 4 weeks ago

          Why would you say that? What did CANDIDA say that was "more reflex than insight"?

          http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/25/i...

          "The United Nations is unable to determine how many Iraqi civilians have been killed so far this year because the Iraqi government won't share the information, a U.N. agency said in a Wednesday report."

          http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/20/iraq/...

          " Iraq's prime minister has barred the Health Ministry from releasing alarming casualty figures that showed violence in Iraq was killing 100 civilians a day and provided a rare insight into the worsening sectarian conflict, according to an internal U.N. memo obtained Friday."

          While the Lancet study was widely reported, most news organizations I listen to used the figures from the more conservative Iraq Body Count, which shows 80k-87k civilians killed but does not count the total number of Iraqis killed.

          http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

          Reply

          22 Replies

          • 0%

            jovial8 months, 4 weeks ago

            You'd be better arguing with someone who would listen to reason. These stories are submitted to incite. They are seldom based on verifiable facts.

            Reply

            20 Replies

            • 0%

              bobo-in-texas8 months, 4 weeks ago

              As referenced in this story, the Lancet "study" used only 46 samples and extrapolated for the whole country while the UN figures used 1000 samples. Also the studies authors and the Lancet editor are strongly anti-Iraq war. Additionally, the Lancet editor has admitted that the publication was rushed and normal peer review was not followed. Finally, the man who collected the so called data refuses to release it publicly.

              All of the above are based on verifiable facts.

              To pretend that Lancet study is not, at the very least, highly questionable is what really requires "more reflex than insight".

              Reply

              19 Replies

              • 0%

                ybdogsct8 months, 4 weeks ago

                (1) The Lancet author admits it's difficult to count fatalities in the midst of a war.

                (2) The UN study used a different methodology than the Johns Hopkins University. The UN only counted those who died directly from acts of violence. The JHU study counts all those who have died as a result of the lack of essential services (clean water, hospital care, etc.) as a result of living in a war zone.

                http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22578010/page/2/

                "The WHO survey tallied only violence-related deaths, but researchers plan future reports on other health measures."

                (3) The number of deaths is tragic/catastrophic regardless of whether you use the UN estimates 104k-223k or the JHU estimate of 600k.

                Reply
              • 0%

                ybdogsct8 months, 4 weeks ago

                (4) The UN survey has ALSO been criticized for underreporting fatalities because (A) families don't want to report violent deaths, (B) families are afraid of cooperating with the Iraq government for fear of retribution, (C) the UN survey did not show rising death counts in recent years despite the rising violence from 2003 to 2006, and (D) some of the most violent neighborhoods in Iraq weren't even visited or polled because they were deemed "too dangerous" to enter.

                http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22578010/

                "'That seems low, especially because the new survey saw no increase in deaths in recent years, as previous surveys did,' said Columbia University's Dr. Ronald Waldman. More than 100 neighborhoods, mostly in Baghdad and Anbar, could not be visited for safety reasons. 'This is consistent with family members not wanting to tell the government about violent deaths' Lee Roberts said."

                CANDIDA is right. We likely won't know the true number until years from now.

                Reply

                14 Replies

                • 0%

                  bobo-in-texas8 months, 4 weeks ago

                  The Lancet study suffers from the same problems in addition to the fact that it relies on less than 1/20th the sample size.

                  Why does so much of the Left find it more believable?

                  Reply

                  13 Replies

                  • 0%

                    ybdogsct8 months, 4 weeks ago

                    BOBO:

                    "The Lancet study suffers from the same problems"

                    The UN only counts those who died by acts of violence. The Lancet study considers all those who died as a result of living in a war zone, including those who died from lack of clean water, hospital care, etc.

                    BOBO:

                    "Why does so much of the Left find it more believable?"

                    You have fallen victim again to the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy--either the Lancet is right or the UN is right. It doesn't occur to you that they both might be inaccurate, with the UN underreporting and the Lancet overreporting. Contrary to your misperceptions, the "Left" does not find the Lancet study to be "more believable." The "Left" recognizes that both studies have flaws and that the true number will likely not be know for years to come. You do not consider this an option because you've limited the possible answers with your false dichotomy.

                    Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

                    Reply
                  • 0%

                    injest8 months, 4 weeks ago

                    ybdogsct

                    "The Lancet study considers all those who died as a result of living in a war zone, including those who died from lack of clean water, hospital care, etc."

                    Ybdogsct, So so close. This may be a case of can't see the forest cause of the tress.

                    The Lancet study considers/counts ALL those who died while living in a war zone as deaths caused by the war. ALL regardless of the actual cause, old age, cancer, traffic accidents, homicides, accidents in general.

                    A true but pointless statement to the situation is just that, true but pointless.

                    Example:

                    Since the invasion Iraq, 2003 thru 2007, 120K Americans have died horrible tragic deaths.

                    The statement is absolutely true but pointless as we usually have 40K deaths a year due to traffic accidents.

                    Reply

                    11 Replies

                    • 0%

                      ybdogsct8 months, 4 weeks ago

                      INJEST:

                      "The Lancet study considers/counts ALL those who died while living in a war zone as deaths caused by the war. ALL regardless of the actual cause."

                      No. Deaths by regular traffic accident are NOT counted by the Lancet study. Only deaths caused by war zone conditions, like lack of access to clean drinking water, count.

                      This is why the Lancet study used the term "excess deaths." Their figures count the number of Iraqis who died in excess of the average fatality rate in pre-invasion Iraq. So, suppose 50k Iraqis die of natural causes and accidents every 5 years, but 700k Iraqis died between 2003-2007. Then the count of "excess deaths" is 650k. And this profound deviation from the normal mean fatality rate can be largely attributed to the hazards of living in a war zone.

                      Reply

                      10 Replies

                      • 0%

                        injest8 months, 4 weeks ago

                        "No. Deaths by regular traffic accident are NOT counted by the Lancet study. Only deaths caused by war zone conditions, like lack of access to clean drinking water, count."

                        When the "key" element is "war zone conditions" anything and everything is related. If the traffic accident was caused by a broken water main, one could say the broken water main was caused by "war zone conditions". With something as vague as "war zone conditions" there is no limit as to what can apply to.

                        Reply

                        4 Replies

                        • 0%

                          ybdogsct8 months, 4 weeks ago

                          INJEST:

                          "If the traffic accident was caused by a broken water main, one could say the broken water main was caused by "war zone conditions"."

                          I think it's safe to conclude that something these particular incidents would be small in number and would NOT explain the difference of hundreds of thousands of uncounted dead. However, what is significant are the profound public health hazards of living in a war zone. A "traffic accident caused by a broken water main" may claim a handful of lives (an insignificant number compared to the author's calculated uncertainty); a lack of clean drinking water, however, could alone kill thousands--which is a significant number.

                          You can try inventing hypotheticals such as "a traffic accident caused by a broken water main," but these incidents have been shown to be relatively minor players. The biggest causes of fatality by far are the acts of violence and public health emergencies endemic to living in a war zone.

                          Reply

                          3 Replies

                          • 0%

                            injest8 months, 4 weeks ago

                            "NOT explain the difference of hundreds of thousands of uncounted dead".

                            That would also explain the un found bodies of the uncounted dead at a rate of 1 every 2 min. 7/24/365 X 2 years.

                            At some point ya have to let common sense set in. That many dead would have showed up somewhere. The fact that Anti-war Soros funded Iraq study and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset, just might skew the results?

                            If not why did they hide that info?

                            In other news a study today found that drinking alcohol daily is a good thing. The study found that hard liquor was not as good for you as say beer, but wine was found to be the ideal drink for everyone.

                            The Study was funded by the Northern California Napa Valley farmers association.

                            BTW the Northern California Napa Valley farmers study was real. A few years back

                            Reply

                            2 Replies

                            • 0%

                              ybdogsct8 months, 4 weeks ago

                              INJEST:

                              "That many dead would have showed up somewhere."

                              They are showing up. Many are showing up in mass graves. I'm sure there are more mass graves that have yet to be discovered.

                              http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/19/iraq....

                              "26 bodies were uncovered in mass graves next to what were thought to be execution sites"

                              http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-12-03-i...

                              "More than 100 bodies, including women and children, have turned up since October in the remote desert terrain surrounding Lake Tharthar. Most of the victims have no IDs, but officials have said they were likely abducted and murdered by al-Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgents."

                              http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,102...

                              "The task of identifying thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians who died during this year's war has begun with the exhumation of a mass grave at one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces in Baghdad."

                              Reply
                            • 0%

                              ybdogsct8 months, 4 weeks ago

                              Furthermore, you continue to ignore the fact that the reason why the Lancet study and the UN study were different is because their methodologies were so different. The UN only counted those who died directly from act of violence. The Lancet counts all who died as a result of living in war zone conditions.

                              INJEST:

                              "In other news a study today found that drinking alcohol daily is a good thing."

                              In moderation, yes alcohol has been demonstrated to have some desirable effects. Alcohol in moderation acts as a vasodilator, which may be beneficial to those suffering from hypertension and atherosclerosis. These results have been corroborated by researchers unlinked to winemakers, and the science of alcohol's vasodilatory activity is relatively well understood. Just because one of the studies was sponsored by winemakers does NOT discredit the science behind the results. This is a poor example, and it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

                              Reply
                      • 0%

                        injest8 months, 4 weeks ago

                        Lancet in October 2004 claimed 98,000 civilian deaths

                        Lancet in October 11 2006 claimed 655,000 Iraqis killed since invasion'

                        In other words Lancet is claiming 559000 deaths tween Oct 04 to Oct 06 that's 24 months Or 730 days.

                        559000 divide by 730 equals 765.75 each day! Every day! For 24 solid months.

                        31.9 EVERY hour,

                        1 war related death every 2 min 24/7

                        Where are the bodies?

                        That would be a hell of a lot of fire fights.

                        How has every news agency world wide not notice that level of carnage?

                        Reply

                        4 Replies

                        • 0%

                          Aurinkohirvi8 months, 4 weeks ago

                          What do you suspect where the bodies are, and who calculates them, when the infrastructure of the country has collapsed and 4 million people have run from their houses? In cases like this, you don't get the exact numbers and body counts from any source! That's why the study was done in the first place.

                          And it's not all combat deaths. According Lancet study 31% of the deaths were caused by the coalition foces. But all of the deaths were indeed caused by the invasion.

                          Reply
                        • 0%

                          ybdogsct8 months, 4 weeks ago

                          INJEST:

                          "In other words Lancet is claiming 559000 deaths tween Oct 04 to Oct 06 that's 24 months Or 730 days."

                          No. Your oversimplistic arithmetic is incorrect because The Lancet is a journal that publishes OTHER SCIENTISTS' research. The Lancet itself does NOT "claim" anything.

                          For example, the study that claimed 650k fatalities was performed by Johns Hopkins and submitted for publication in the Lancet. If the second study you cited was not performed by the same group of scientists at Johns Hopkins, then it is simply a case of two different researchers arriving at a different set of results. To explain the discrepancy, one would have to closely re-examine their methodologies.

                          Reply

                          2 Replies

                          • 0%

                            injest8 months, 4 weeks ago

                            The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset.

                            His team surveyed 1,849 homes at 47 sites across Iraq, asking people about births, deaths and migration in their households

                            Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 (£23,000) of the approximate £50,000 cost of the study had come from Soros's Open Society Institute.

                            Roberts said this weekend: "In retrospect, it was probably unwise to have taken money that could have looked like it would result in a political slant. I am adamant this could not have affected the outcome of the research."

                            The Lancet did not break any rules by failing to disclose Soros's sponsorship.

                            Reply

                            1 Reply

                            • 0%

                              ybdogsct8 months, 4 weeks ago

                              INJEST:

                              "The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts"

                              The study was corroborated by a Johns Hopkins study.

                              http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

                              "A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred. The survey was done by Iraqi physicians and overseen by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health."

                              http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_rel...

                              "Updated Iraq survey conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad affirms earlier mortality estimates. As many as 654,965 more Iraqis may have died than would have been expected under pre-war conditions."

                              Reply
              • 0%

                Aurinkohirvi8 months, 4 weeks ago

                -For the Lancet Iraq study, data were collected from 47 randomly selected clusters of 40 households each.

                -Total number of households included was 1849.

                -The results from the new study closely match the finding of the group's October 2004 mortality survey.

                http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_rel...

                -92% of those asked for death certificates produced them to Lancet interviewers.

                -The 2007 ORB (Opinion Research Business), published an estimate of the total casualties of the Iraq war, that is consistent with the Lancet numbers.

                -In June 2006, the Iraq's Ministry of Health reported zero violent deaths in Anbar Province, but US army reported a high number of combat deaths and combat action was shown in TV broadcasts.

                http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq...

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_...

                Reply

                2 Replies

                • 0%

                  bobo-in-texas8 months, 4 weeks ago

                  If the Lancet study is so well designed, why won't they release their raw data as usual? Given the political leaning of those involved, and the fact that they are an extreme outlier, the answer is obvious.

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 0%

                    ybdogsct8 months, 4 weeks ago

                    BOBO:

                    "If the Lancet study is so well designed, why won't they release their raw data as usual?"

                    Actually, this is not an uncommon practice in the scientific community. Scientists normally don't like to release their raw data because a publication doesn't always mark the end of the research into that topic. Scientists continuing to delve deeper into the problem can publish several more papers; since the original scientist doesn't want others catching up to them and "outscooping" them, the original scientists will withhold raw data and provide only the methodology for publication. Really, all that is required for publication is a release of the methodology.

                    Also, many Iraqis would feel threatened if it had been revealed that they cooperated with the US or coalition forces in any way. Certainly, many have already been killed for doing so. The authors of the Lancet study may be keeping their sources confidential to protect these Iraqis from harm.

                    Reply
          • 0%

            Aurinkohirvi8 months, 4 weeks ago

            The Iraq Body Count won't ever give you the real civilian death toll!

            The Iraq Body Count Project mainly lists civilian deaths announced in the ENGLISH WRITTEN MEDIA. The majority of the deaths are go unreported, and more so unreported in English media. It is not a reliable source of estimating real total death toll, but is a way to estimate the MINIMUM death toll.

            Iraqbodycount.org data sources. Read how they collect the information.

            http://www.iraqbodycount.org/about/methods/2

            Reply
      • 0%

        jovial8 months, 4 weeks ago

        Hi Candida,

        I found this report. This explains the other and more believable side of this story. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/609902...

        Reply
    • 0%

      simonsez8 months, 4 weeks ago

      Averages out to around 650 per day every day.

      Somebody should have caught it.

      Reply
    • 0%

      mesodude8 months, 4 weeks ago

      Actually there are a lot of *dead* reporters out there...

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        SpazMat8 months, 4 weeks ago

        Yes, and that is just among the MSM reporters who have never been near a war zone.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          IcCaRus8 months, 4 weeks ago

          a he!! of a lot more MSM reporters have seen war zones than ANY1 in the Bush admin.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            SpazMat8 months, 4 weeks ago

            That was not supporting Bush, it was busting on the style of most reporters.

            Reply
  • 0%

    injest8 months, 4 weeks ago

    "What the National Journal adds is that the Lancet study was funded by billionaire George Soros's Open Society Institute"

    Soros again! I'm shocked I tell you shocked!

    Would it be fair to call Soros the "puppet" master?

    Oh wait what would that make Moveon and co. be?

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      earthlingerer8 months, 4 weeks ago

      Yeah, Soros makes the earth spin into night every day, too.

      So many would dismiss Murdoch's rag... unless it fingerpaints and crayons out a story like this. Likewise so many far to the right of intelligence would have never trusted ANYTHING the UN put forward, instead choosing to march goosestepping behind their "diplomat" John Bolton. But now, the UN is trustworthy, and well worth listening to.

      Lancet versus Murdoch? Let's just say the Lancet has a peer-review system in place, and they would certainly publish anything that could prove the study they published to be misleading.

      The Lancet stands as truth, Murdoch stands as a purveyor of BS. Glad to see who's been EATING IT UP!!!

      Reply
    • 0%

      bobo-in-texas8 months, 4 weeks ago

      LOL. The Lancet editor admits that they bypassed their vaunted peer review process so that they could get the results out before the 2006 election.

      Now that's what I call fair & balanced!

      Reply
  • 0%

    mesodude8 months, 4 weeks ago

    You know I find it very interesting that neocons can parrot back information like abortion statistics and the number of Kurds Saddam supposedly gassed, etc but they couldn't care less about getting an accurate count of the number of babies we've bombed and shot up in Iraq. You have no freaking idea how many people have been killed whose deaths probably haven't been documented and you really don't care. All you care about is trying to minimize the disgraceful illegal and murderous invasion of a country that NEVER attacked us and had no WMD. Bobo, I'm sorry to tell you but there is nothing you neocons can do to salvage your chimpy hero's legacy of earth shattering failure and destruction of our planet. Keep cheerleading from the sidelines all you want. Bush will still go down as the WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY.

    Reply

    11 Replies

    • 0%

      tanglang8 months, 4 weeks ago

      Whatever helps you sleep at night meso.

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        mesodude8 months, 4 weeks ago

        Well, no....Think about it. That's pretty much world consensus, tang. It's not just me. It's not just liberals. It's not just most of America. Across the globe that's the consensus. Deal with reality, baby.

        Reply
      • 0%

        IcCaRus8 months, 4 weeks ago

        we'll never know WHAT lets those that support Duh-bya and this war sleep at night...

        maybe its the ability to deny/rationalize/justify ANYTHING, so long as its done by a republican.

        maybe its the ability to just NOT CARE as long as its not 100,000 americans dying.

        maybe its just that typical conservative family value that goes "i got mine, so scr@w every1 else"

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          tanglang8 months, 4 weeks ago

          Not even close pal. I sleep well at night because I know that we are doing the right thing. Yes, and the sad thing is that you lefties would rather 100,000 Americans die. You have some in your party that feel we deserved 9/11. As for the "screw everyone else" line, close, but again no cigars. It's more like, "I worked hard for everything I have, so I refuse to give it to someone who wont."

          Reply
    • 0%

      bobo-in-texas8 months, 4 weeks ago

      FYI Meso, the vast majority of dead babies and other innocents are the product of Islamofascist warriors from the Religion of Peace killing the co-religionists.

      Your hate for your fellow Americans is palpable.

      Reply

      6 Replies

      • 0%

        Daylight8 months, 4 weeks ago

        BoBo in Texas

        FYI Meso, the vast majority of dead babies and other innocents are the product of Islamofascist warriors from the Religion of Peace killing the co-religionists.

        Your hate for your fellow Americans is palpable.

        BoBo you wants to justify your master Bush, and his war as a just one, this is in fact a crime that God will not forgive America. You are a man without any principle, just want to suck Bush and his Nazi policies. He started this war with other greedy Iraqi politicians and then blame so called Islamofascism. There is no such thing as Islamofascism anywhere in the world ever existed,and fascism has no place in Islam. Only fascism that exists in theworld today is American fascism, Israeli fascism and the British fascism. Everybody has the right to defend their land. Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine part of which is fascist Israel today, it survives and thrives by the fascist American support.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          injest8 months, 4 weeks ago

          "fascism has no place in Islam"

          Uhm daylight, you might want to look that up. Most of the Arab countries were aligned with the Nazis. There was even a "special" Iranian SS corps.

          Ba'ath Party, or The Arab Socialist Ba'th Party is based on the NAZI's

          Reply
      • 0%

        mesodude8 months, 4 weeks ago

        Oh gee, BoBo...Last time I checked, we were still the country with a military machine that dwarfs those of several other countries combined and you're criticizing the entire religion of Islam because of what a minority of people are doing? Amazing...Maybe you should worry less about "Islamofascists" and more about the fascists in the Bush administration who are illegally eavesdropping on your phone conversations and spying on Quakers.

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • 0%

          bobo-in-texas8 months, 4 weeks ago

          Just in case you missed it, the Islamofascists killed over 3,000 Americans. They also like to stone to death gays and subugate women.

          Of course to a real Progressive those are trivial matters.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            mesodude8 months, 4 weeks ago

            "Just in case you missed it, the Islamofascists killed over 3,000 Americans. They also like to stone to death gays and subugate women."

            Bush killed over 3,000 Americans and don't get me started on gays and women. In fact, don't tell me you don't tune into Fox News each day for minute by minute coverage of this month's missing (i.e. soon to be found dead) pretty white girl of the moment. We have nothing to brag about as a country in that regard and we sure as hell have no business invading other countries and forcing them to emulate us. Get a grip...

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              SpazMat8 months, 4 weeks ago

              Can you grasp the difference between a country that holds people that kill gays and women, and a country that actively supports killing gays and women?

              We show it on the news because it is news, not norm.

              Reply
• 0%

  Endoscopy8 months, 4 weeks ago

  BoBo you hit the nail on the head. The left seems to like lies. Especially by calling others liars.

  Reply

  34 Replies

  • 0%

    djn3nunez38 months, 4 weeks ago

    So how is the hunt for the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction going? Have they found the mobile chemical production plants yet? How about those massive stock piles of Chemical and biological weapons that the administration knew where theyt were, have they been found yet, or was that just a pack of lies to lead you guys head long over the clif.... um, er.. head long into the invasion and occupation of an oil rich arab nation that did not attack us? What about the flowers.....

    Nobody knows how many Iraqis have lost their lives because they don't count them.

    Reply

    26 Replies

    • 0%

      bobo-in-texas8 months, 4 weeks ago

      DJ, why don't you stick to commenting on the story at hand. I know that it's painful to accept the news that The Lancet numbers are a fraud but when even the UN doesn't agree with you, you need to accept the truth.

      BTW, I'm interested to know why it's a bad thing that hundreds of thousands of previously claimed dead Iraqis are indeed very much alive?

      Reply

      22 Replies

      • 0%

        Candida8 months, 4 weeks ago

        No, it's not a bad thing if hundreds of thousands of Iraqis believed to be dead are alive, but it is a bad thing that nobody really counts the dead, as if they weren't even human beings.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          IcCaRus8 months, 4 weeks ago

          part of the problem is that both the US and Iraqi govts are NOT cooperating. doing their best to NOT allow an accurate count....

          this president and his administration are a disgrace. they make good, honest, hardworking people ashamed of their own country!

          you cons will read that and say "hes a liberal, he'll hate any Rep Pres" ... you would be wrong! yes, im a Liberal, but i DONT hate all things Republican... i voted against Reagan, but ya know what? Ron made me PROUD to be an american! Duh-bya couldnt hold Reagans strap on his BEST day!

          Reply
      • 0%

        djn3nunez38 months, 4 weeks ago

        Because all the death in Iraq, US and Iraqi citizens, regardless of the actual numbers of Iraqis killed, were all killed because of the lies from the Bush administration used about Iraqs WMD and the threat they posed to the world. The previous poster mentioned how much the left supposedly likes lies and liars. I just wanted to point out the lies that got us in this mess in the first place.

        BTW bobo I always believed the numbers in that report were exaggerated.

        Reply

        15 Replies

        • 0%

          TOD3968 months, 4 weeks ago

          DJ, what about the mass extermination that Saddam was doing prior to the invasion? Wasn't Saddam responsible for thousands of Iraqi's being systematically eliminated? Wasn't that one of the reasons he was removed from power?

          If Saddam was killing thousands of Iraqis, and we stopped Saddam, where do you get the position that these civilians wouldn't have died if Bush wasn't there?

          Reply

          14 Replies

          • 0%

            pcknowledge8 months, 4 weeks ago

            Insane logic. So it doesn't matter if Saddam killed Iraqis or this Bush led war did. First off, we don't know how many Saddam was killing. Saddam was killing those who opposed him, not random civilians. Second, the Iraqis where free to leave the country when Saddam was in power. Third, if Bush's only goal was to have Saddam killed, he could have had Saddam killed by our special forces. Saddam's whereabouts where known to the whole world. Removing Saddam didn't require such a "shock & awe" war operation. Fourth, this war killed many civilians, children & young adults who would have had children of their own. Fifth, this war is not over yet. Many Iraqis continue to die on a daily basis. Sixth, the after effects of war in Iraq will be terrible.

            Reply

            5 Replies

            • 0%

              bobo-in-texas8 months, 4 weeks ago

              It's sad to see someone who is so ill informed and so full of self-hatred.

              Reply

              4 Replies

              • 0%

                Candida8 months, 4 weeks ago

                Could you expand on that? In what way is he ill informed? What is the correct information?

                Reply

                3 Replies

                • 0%

                  IcCaRus8 months, 4 weeks ago

                  no he cant expand, its just a meaningless canned answer meant to deflect the argumenmt.

                  Reply
                • 0%

                  bobo-in-texas8 months, 4 weeks ago

                  I tried to post a detailed, and long, response twice and Netscape ate my answer. I'll try again when perhaps it's acting better.

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 0%

                    dissent8 months, 4 weeks ago

                    uh huh

                    Reply
          • 0%

            djn3nunez38 months, 4 weeks ago

            Saddam may have been a brutal and repressive dictator (with I might add, support from Ronnie Raygun and the first President Bush), however, there was stability in Iraq. Normal citizens could go about their everyday business without fear of being caught in the crossfire in the ongoing civil war, (or being mowed down by a Blackwater convoy). Iraq was a secular nation and was not part of the Radical Islamic movement(like Iran). Women enjoyed more rights there than in any other Arab nation.

            I have to agree with ybdog's previous post...

            "the "Left" does not find the Lancet study to be "more believable." The "Left" recognizes that both studies have flaws and that the true number will likely not be known for years to come"

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 0%

              Candida8 months, 4 weeks ago

              djn3nunez3: "Women enjoyed more rights there than in any other Arab nation."

              Yes, rights that they have either already lost or are gradually losing now.

              Reply
            • 0%

              bobo-in-texas8 months, 4 weeks ago

              "Saddam may have been a brutal and repressive dictator however, there was stability in Iraq."

              Insert Hitler, Stalin or Mao and the same statement is true.

              Is stability your gold standard?

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                schillinfl18 months, 3 weeks ago

                Funny how everytime a liberal mentions Saddam and his past it always follows with a "but".....EVERYTIME.

                Reply
          • 0%

            mesodude8 months, 4 weeks ago

            "If Saddam was killing thousands of Iraqis, and we stopped Saddam, where do you get the position that these civilians wouldn't have died if Bush wasn't there?"

            Perhaps one reason is because al qaeda wasn't in Iraq blowing up people by the thousands each year and millions of people weren't fleeing the country to escape our bombs until we got the brilliant idea to illegally invade that country.

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 0%

              bobo-in-texas8 months, 4 weeks ago

              Meso, you really shouldn't spread lies like the invasion of Iraq was illegal.

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                mesodude8 months, 4 weeks ago

                I'm not spreading anything. It's common knowledge--across the globe.

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  schillinfl18 months, 3 weeks ago

                  So where are the trials?

                  Lies buddy.

                  Reply
      • 0%

        bill-smith8 months, 4 weeks ago

        "why don't you stick to commenting on the story at hand".

        Yeah, BoBo, that's rich coming from you and your cohort!

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          bill-smith8 months, 4 weeks ago

          What's the matter BoBo, does the truth hurt?

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            bobo-in-texas8 months, 4 weeks ago

            Yes it can but it's notably absent in your comments above.

            Reply
      • 0%

        Daylight8 months, 4 weeks ago

        BOBO in Texas

        BTW, I'm interested to know why it's a bad thing that hundreds of thousands of previously claimed

        Yeah, they will be alive on the Day of Judgment or if you take Bush and those who started and continuing the war to the war crime court the truth will come out or it will be buried along with the dead Iraqis and the dead American soldiers.

        Reply
    • 0%

      Daylight8 months, 4 weeks ago

      djn3nunez3

      The truth is they are still looking for it but they have certainly found a couple of new oil wells.

      (Nobody knows how many Iraqis have lost their lives because they don't count them.)

      Of course it is known only to God and those who are involved in the war.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        bobo-in-texas8 months, 4 weeks ago

        It makes sense that Allah would know since most of the dead Iraqi civilians were killed in his name.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          dissent8 months, 4 weeks ago

          We all know we'd never kill anyone in our name and even if we did we'd never admit it. That's why we need loyalists, like you boo boo, who deny it to the end even if it does become really painfully obvious and, well ya know, kind of embarassing.

          That's coz our Mega Huge Industrial War Machine Bohemoth - with a budget that is so big, so humungously huge, gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you - couldn't have had anything to do with it coz they've been tip-toeing around trying not to offend anyone, saying excuse me and please and thank you very much, handing out lots and lots of fluffy toys (that's what the budget is for) and all the Iraqis really really luv 'em, right, boo boo?

          And that's a much nicer story too, don't you think boo boo?

          Reply
  • 0%

    dissent8 months, 4 weeks ago

    Endoscopy: BoBo you hit the nail on the head. The left seems to like lies. Especially by calling others liars.

    The left likes lies? What about these doozies?

    "There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest."

    Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Response to Question From Press 9/6/2002

    "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"

    Condoleeza Rice, CNN Late Edition 9/8/2002

    "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

    George W. Bush, Speech to UN General Assembly 9/12/2002

    But wait! There's more!!

    Reply

    6 Replies

    • 0%

      dissent8 months, 4 weeks ago

      "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

      George W. Bush, Radio Address 10/5/2002

      "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

      George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002

      And just when we thought we'd heard it all, it kept comin' down in buckets!!!

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 0%

        bobo-in-texas8 months, 4 weeks ago

        There are none so blind as who refuse to see.

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • 0%

          bill-smith8 months, 4 weeks ago

          And none so ignorant as those that refuse to think.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            bobo-in-texas8 months, 4 weeks ago

            You had better put your thinking cap on then and get started.

            Reply
        • 0%

          dissent8 months, 4 weeks ago

          Would you like me to read them out for you boo boo, you know, you being blind and all?

          Reply
    • 0%