Shuster: "Over 95K Iraqis gave their life for Chimpy's 'freeing' them

[CatWoman]

:cry:

[slipslidingaway]

1. Where does he get that figure, many estimates are much higher

:(

[CatWoman]

2. dunno

but I'll post when I find it.

[slipslidingaway]

3. I just kicked the other thread from yesterday, although the 95K

is horrible, it sounds so much better than 1 million. Even if he thinks that is incorrect, suppose it is "only" a half or a quarter of that amount.

Thanks, if you find out, just thought he might have mentioned it.

[stillcool]

8. that's the highest I've heard reported on tv....

I don't think they even reported on the Lancet Study done in 2006. The Iraq Body Count is highly touted but only counts deaths reported by the government and media.

Iraq Conflict Has Killed a Million Iraqis: Survey
By Andrew Roche
Reuters
January 30, 2008

More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups. The survey, conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB) with 2,414 adults in face-to-face interviews, found that 20 percent of people had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, rather than natural causes. The last complete census in Iraq conducted in 1997 found 4.05 million households in the country, a figure ORB used to calculate that approximately 1.03 million people had died as a result of the war, the researchers found.

The margin of error in the survey, conducted in August and September 2007, was 1.7 percent, giving a range of deaths of 946,258 to 1.12 million. ORB originally found that 1.2 million people had died, but decided to go back and conduct more research in rural areas to make the survey as comprehensive as possible and then came up with the revised figure. The research covered 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces. Those that not covered included two of Iraq's more volatile regions -- Kerbala and Anbar -- and the northern province of Arbil, where local authorities refused them a permit to work. Estimates of deaths in Iraq have been highly controversial in the past. Medical journal The Lancet published a peer-reviewed report in 2004 stating that there had been 100,000 more deaths than would normally be expected since the March 2003 invasion, kicking off a storm of protest.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/mortality/2008/0130orb.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/mortalitindex.htm

[slipslidingaway]

9. At least the people got a mention, I only remember the 2004

Lancet being talked about and that was done to discredit the report.

Kucinich and Ron Paul had a hearing about the Lancet report, although Paul did not attend, maybe he supported the hearing so Kucinich could get a room??? The Repubs were in control at the time.

In fact not one other member of Congress attended.

Thanks.

[stillcool]

14. Iraq Body Count...

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
they count deaths reported by the media and government officials.

[slipslidingaway]

15. I have not looked at their site lately, I remember when bush

quoted their figure as well.

Thanks for checking

:)

[Bonobo]

4. Ridiculously low!

Compare this with the estimate from the first Gulf War at over 150,000. And we all know there is no real comparison.

The numbers from Dubya's murder spree must be 10 times that amount.

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030216casualty0216p5.asp

[stillcool]

13. I think it's in-line with the Iraq Body Count..

numbers which only report numbers released by the government and the media.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

[Bonobo]

16. The phrase "documented" gives an indication of how far off that is.

Bodies buried in rubble and then bulldozed over, children under 5 dying of cholera, diarrhea, John Does dying "accidentally" in prisons, suicides, homicides due to lawlessness... these are probably hard to "document".

[stillcool]

17. Not to mention Fallujah...

[LakeSamish706]

5. Don't know for certain what the accuracy of the following URL is...

but Shuster is way off base on the numbers if this is correct.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

[panader0]

6. He said that the estimate was from the US Army

We all know it's much, much higher.

[jaysunb]

7. That number is for the "surge" only

there's plenty more.:(

[DCKit]

10. Time to elect a Congress that can count.

No wonder we're in so much trouble - They think "trillion" is just a concept.

[Canuckistanian]

11. Did he really say "Chimpy"?

And anyways, the Lancet study put that number over 1 million a few years ago.

And it was verified.

[Canuckistanian]

12. dupe