How many Iraqi’s have died in the invasion and its aftermath?

Dr. Les Roberts has the answer…or not.

“An estimated 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq as a direct or indirect consequence of the March 2003 United States-led invasion, according to a new study by a research team at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.” (NY Times, 10/29)

Dr. Roberts, an epidemiologist and environmental engineer who works for the International Rescue Committee, headed up the survey which interviewed all of 1,000 Iraqi families.

“In the study, teams of researchers led by Dr. Les Roberts fanned out across Iraq in mid-September to interview nearly 1,000 families in 33 locations. Families were interviewed about births and deaths in the household before and after the invasion.

Although the authors acknowledge that data collection was difficult in what is effectively still a war zone, the data they managed to collect is extensive. Using what they described as the best sampling methods that could be applied under the circumstances, they found that Iraqis were 2.5 times more likely to die in the 17 months following the invasion than in the 14 months before it.”

“The best sampling methods that could be applied under the circumstances?” What the hell does that mean?

“The researchers said they were highly technical in their selection of interview sites and data analysis, although interview locations were limited by the decision to cut down on driving time when possible in order to reduce the risk to the interviewers.”

“Cut down on driving time?” Are they kidding?

“The research team decided that asking for death certificates in each case, during the interviews, might cause hostility and could put the research team in danger.”

So, let’s get this straight…You don’t go very far from Baghdad because the surrounding environs are too dangerous and where civilian casualties will thus be greater and to put the icing on your study you don’t check to see if the people who you’re interviewing are telling the truth?

This gets better…

“Some of those killed may have been insurgents, not civilians, the authors noted. Also, the rise in deaths included a rise in murders and some deaths were caused by the decline of medical care.”

Terrorists…insurgents…murders…and “the decline in MEDICAL CARE?”

Something is fishy here. After all, the anti-war group Iraq Body Count.net puts the civilian death toll in Iraq at a maximum of 16,289. And they include:

“... civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.”

Whom to believe? Could there be another motivation for Dr. Roberts et. al. to release this hit piece?

“Editors of The Lancet, the London-based medical publication, where an article describing the study is scheduled to appear, decided not to wait for the normal publication date next week, but to place the research online Friday, apparently so it could circulate before the election.”

Don’t you love the NY Times ability to understate a fact?

Why publicize this study in the first place? With all the qualifiers, (that, of course, appear at the end of the article) the political bias of the group that participated in this project should be obvious. Even the Times acknowledges this:

“But Dr. Roberts and his colleagues are critical of the Bush administration and the Army for not releasing estimates of civilian deaths.”

I’ll bet.

Simply put, this study is a load of crap. And it does an enormous disservice to history and to the Iraqi people who someday, will have to deal with this episode in their history and will need the most accurate information possible in order to come to terms with Saddam and the aftermath of his bloody rule.


WHY WE FIGHT

Varifrank is a blog I’ve linked to on several occassions because I think the posts are amongst the best written, most reasoned and impassioned posts on the election around.

Go here now. And don’t come back until you’ve read the entire post. Look at the pictures while repeating what the poster wants you to repeat. AND THEN YOU COME BACK HERE AND TELL ME THAT WE SHOULDN’T HAVE LIBERATED IRAQ.

(Warning: Disturbing and graphic images)


UPDATE: KERRY’S DISCHARGE “LESS THAN HONORABLE”

Via Powerline.

“We got it finally. We have the Former Secretary of the Navy who stated, “Yes, Kerry did receive an Other Than Honorable Discharge”.

While the credibility of the report has not been assesed, the number of rumors floating around the last few weeks about Kerry’s discharge have been astounding. The most credible info I’ve seen suggests that Kerry has not revealed his standard DD214 discharge paper that everyone gets when they’re discharged from the service. Here’s more on that from Buzz Patterson published in “Human Events Online.” (Hat Tip: LIttle Green Footballs)

Patterson found a cover letter in Kerry’s military file posted on his campaign website that suggested there had been a change in the status of his discharge after he left the service. Most speculation centered on the year 1978 when Jimmy Carter gave a general amnesty to all Viet Nam era protestors. Kerry’s traitorous activities would be something that would certainly be in need of offical “pardoning”; something I suspect most people reading this will never do.

SEE ALSO:

Pat at Kerryhaters has been directing traffic on this story for weeks. He has a link to “A New Conservative Voice” who’s writing a letter to Sean Hannity asking his help.