Sunday, October 29, 2006

Bush Disputes Johns Hopkins War Estimates...Who Do We Trust?

This week Johns Hopkins released new estimates of deaths in Iraq that are attributable to the invasion and occupation. The revised estimate is a staggering 655,000, according to an article in the BBC this week, translating to a doubling of the mortality rate in the country since the invasion and averaging 500 deaths per day. These are deaths directly attributable to the invasion and occupation and in which in nearly 80% of the cases that were identified from which to make the estimates, the families produced bona fide death certificates.

The death rate in Iraq rose from 5.5 to 13.3 per 1000 pre to post-invasion. In this short 3 and ½ years, then, Iraq has lost 2.5% of its population. If the same thing had happened in this country, our equivalent would be 7 million dead. It is totally unthinkable. And for the Iraqis, there is no end in sight. They must shudder at the words, “stay the course.”

As shocking as the numbers are, it is equally shocking that the President so blithely dismisses them. He characterized the study as “pretty well discredited” and “whatever they guessed at is just…it’s just not credible.” Quite amazing for a man who has been wrong about everything…not some things, or a few things, but everything…to call into question the careful work of scientists who are staking their reputations on their methods and analysis…not the political implications of their results.

The Bush administration could have a counter-claim but they foreclosed that option when they made the policy decision in the beginning not to count civilian deaths. So, on what basis, does the President, General Pace or anyone else, have any objection to make about this study? These people can continue to delude themselves, but no longer can they delude the rest of us.


Blogger mike said...

Well, there seem to be a number of deluded people in the world with respect to the Lancet "Study". Guess what? They're not all part of the Bush cabal...

Read my second piece (which also references the first piece) on this subject here:

A little multiple choice for your readers: Who wrote this?

We would hope that, before accepting such extreme notions, serious consideration is given to the possibility that the population estimates derived from the Lancet study are flawed. The most likely source of such a flaw is some bias in the sampling methodology ... to dismiss the possibility of such bias out of hand is surely both irresponsible and unwise.

A: The Pentagon
C: The White House
D: Fox News


read it all:

6:48 PM  
Blogger mike said...

UGH, blogger wouldn't let me preview my post, kept giving me an error. So, I made a HUGE mistake. The ANSWER IS B I SWEAR!!

6:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home