UPDATE: Grim points out that Soldier's Dad obliviated (yes my word) this silly study over at Milblogs
The same folks who brought us outrageously inflated claims about the number of Iraqis killed in our initial invasion have, shockingly, now brought us outrageously inflated claims about the number killed in the two years since. And somehow the timing just happened to be the month before elections.
While acknowledging that the estimate is large, the researchers believe it is sound for numerous reasons. The recent survey got the same estimate for immediate post-invasion deaths as the early survey, which gives the researchers confidence in the methods. The great majority of deaths were also substantiated by death certificates.
So they are sure they got it right because they are just as wrong this time as they were the first time.
Kathryn Lopez at NRO notes-A, Hill Guy e-mails:
The article below will be a story today, even though it shouldn't. As the AP report points out, other experts agree that these numbers are grossly inflated, and the group has admitted to a political motivation in the timing of its earlier report. And the lead researcher of that report, Les Roberts, said the liberation of Iraq was done "under unsupportable, and probably illegal, pretenses.", Even Human Rights Watch said the earlier report by these same researchers was "certainly prone to inflation due to overcounting"
, This group's October 2004 report claimed 100,000 Iraqis casualties as a result of Iraq's liberation, and now claim that number is up to 655,000, or more than 550,000 casualties in the last two years alone. But as the authors wrote in an "author's reply" following concerns that were raised about the methodology of the 2004 report, "The death toll estimated by our study is indeed imprecise." (Lancet, March 26,2005 - April 1, 2005). And an article in the Guardian following the 2004 report highlighted that the 100,000 was, in the words of one of the study's authors, only a "rough indicator," and that the range or their findings was between 8,000 and 194,000
So somewhere between 8 and 194 thousand, good lord I hope I never get treated by one of these quacks. Take 30 to 5000 pills 3 or 750 times daily. But the left/media got the headlines they wanted to run and the war on truth soldiers on against the war on terror.
Then we have another former Clinton official trying to deflect attention from their Potemkin legacy.
While this test is the culmination of North Korea's long-held aspiration to become a nuclear power, it also demonstrates the total failure of the Bush administration's policy toward that country.....The writer was secretary of defense from 1994 to 1997.
As opposed to the tremendous success of the Agreed Framework which Perry helped Clinton implement during his term. An agreement so rock solid that the left's favorite Republican Colin Powell said Kim began violating it before the ink was even dry.
Then in 2002, the Bush administration discovered the existence of a covert program in uranium, evidently an attempt to evade the Agreed Framework.
Ya' think buddy? Because Kim took all the cash and prizes you, Clinton and Madeline Allbright brought him and instead of feeding his people he used them to build a freakin' bomb. Well done old chap. Too bad the Mullahs have all the money and food they need or you could fire up the Appeasement Special and jet yourselves over there to ensure they have all they need to finish their nukes. Back when you were throwing money at Kim we already figgered he had enough nuke material for at least a couple of bombs, but the sweet deal you guys swung ensured he had the resources to keep trucking and even open up another line of enrichment in case he didn't have all the Plutonium he needed.
Why do all these Clintonistas keep popping up reminding us how much they sucked. Shouldn't someone at the DNC be riding herd on them, oops that would be Howard Dean who never saw a train he didn't wanna wreck so I guess he is the wrong answer. Their attempts to justify the complete lack of any progress on any issue of importance through the entire Clinton regime end up showing people just how crappy a situation W inherited. They fiddled while the internet bubble expanded and flew around the world apologizing to anyone with a beef against us. Then having accomplished nothing they slunk out of town amid a flurry of pardons, leaving a crashed economy, a recession and a fundamentally dangerous world to the incoming administration. Now they keep popping up trying to stuff some substance in the empty diplomatic suit that comprised their whole legacy in world affairs. Did people like us more when WJB was president? Sure. Did that get us a damn thing as far as security or prosperity? Sure doesn't look like it.