The Lancet's Political Hit - Bogus Iraq casualty numbers exposed »
Posted By bobo-in-texas 1 year, 5 months ago in NewsThree weeks before the 2006 elections, the British medical journal Lancet published a bombshell report estimating that casualties in Iraq had exceeded 650,000 since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. We know that number was wildly exaggerated. The news is that now we know why.
Read Full Story at online.wsj.com »
445 Views Share Story 38 Comments Report
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 190 (view all)
-
0%
bobo-in-texas1 year, 5 months 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-
0%
libsRfunny1 year, 5 months 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 -
-
0%
mesodude1 year, 5 months 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
-
-
0%
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
BoBo you hit the nail on the head. The left seems to like lies. Especially by calling others liars.
Reply-
0%
djn3nunez31 year, 5 months 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 -
0%
dissent1 year, 5 months 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
-
-
0%
Dicax_Maximus1 year, 5 months ago
How sad & pathetic that an internationally respected medical journal has descended to these depths.
What the hell were they thinking ? Or were they also "helped" into deciding to report this travesty ?
The article's dead right, this will NOT be trumpeted across the media, it'll die a slow death of ingnoring....
Reply-
-
0%
hyperbola1 year, 5 months ago
The Lancet article has a good deal more credibility than the WSJ article. Why is it you are so eager to "believe" the WSJ - especially after so many of their articles have turned out to be totally wrong about Iraq? Guilty conscience?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
IcCaRus1 year, 5 months ago
tell a lie enough and some idiot will believe it, huh?
you musta learned that strategy from Rush, mAnn, or the RNC
Reply
-
-
0%
1-2-Oscar1 year, 5 months ago
That's exactly the problem, Tessylo--it's a medical journal, not a political one, and it can be manipulated by partisans when it ventures outside its area of competence.
Of course, so can you.
Reply-
0%
hyperbola1 year, 5 months ago
Well Oscar, here you are once again showing your ignorance. Epidemiological methods from medicine are widely used in war and disaster areas to estimate death rates - just as they are in the case of medical epidemics.
In fact, exactly the same methods were used both in Ruanda and Bosnia - with widespread quotation of the results by the US government and media.
The sad thing Oscar is that your comment shows that you probably never read the Lancet report and in all this time have never taken the time to understand the issues involved. Despite that you seem to feel qualified to criticize others.
Reply -
0%
wtagg1 year, 5 months ago
Are you suggesting that political journals are not and cannot be manipulated by partisans?
You may be right that the findings may have been manipulated or used flawed data gathering and analysis, but your rational is completely unsupported.
Reply
-
-
0%
jovial1 year, 5 months ago
How can they slant it? For political reasons. Some political types have no scruples. They would deny their own mother birthed them to reinforce their ideology.
Reply -
0%
bobo-in-texas1 year, 5 months ago
Tessy, for the reason stated by me above.
BTW, it's good to see you actually comment on an article.
Reply -
0%
1-2-Oscar1 year, 5 months 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."
We have sufficient examples of this phenomenon right here in this thread.
Reply -
-
0%
earthlingerer1 year, 5 months ago
The National Journal article could hardly be more unreliable. Long on speculation and half-truth, but NEVER citing ANYTHING that could cause anyone to outright say The Lancet's publication to be false. Only a lot of "he said, she said".
It doesn't fix the whole lie that started this, and there are still NO WMD's.
NONE.
Reply -
0%
wtagg1 year, 5 months 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."
"We have sufficient examples of this phenomenon right here in this thread."
As we have in abundance with both parties concerning this topic. You can't possibly believe that the only source of misinformation is the political left.
Reply -
0%
IcCaRus1 year, 5 months ago
just like Duh-byas lies about WMD and "an eminent threat" from Iraq "were trumpeted by the political right because if fit a narative that they wanted to believe."
we can all play THAT game.
Reply
-
-
0%
NelsonR1 year, 5 months ago
A wrong war, lesser casualties, jumbled numbers matters not since the war is wrong, wrong and wrong.
Well unless you are an avowed hawk who fights from his arm chair with guts and glory. Betray Us is such a man including you all know whats coming, Hannity, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, pill popping Limbaugh etc. etc. Strong men with weak minds. America is hated today, WE ARE AGGRESSORS.
Reply -
0%
bobo-in-texas1 year, 5 months ago
Sorry to disappoint you but the vast majority of Iraqi civilians have been murdered by the Islaomfascists.
It must be pretty depressing to believe that your country is full of war criminals and that you're an accomplice.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
BOBO:
"Sorry to disappoint you but the vast majority of Iraqi civilians have been murdered by the Islaomfascists."
That's not what the Iraq Body Count projects.
"US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims. Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims. Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths."
Reply -
0%
hyperbola1 year, 5 months ago
Why are you on the anti-american "islamofascist" bandwagon BoBo? Do you really hate America so much?
Why Does Norman Podhoretz Hate America?
World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism
Norman Podhoretz
Norman Podhoretz's new book, World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism, is a hate-filled, anti-American book of the first order. Podhoretz hates every American who does not support the neoconservatives' views, the foreign policy they have devised, and the military and national security disasters to which they are leading America. Patrick Buchanan, Andrew J. Bacevich, Sir John Keegan, Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel Huntington, Francis Fukuyama, and many others are all targets of Podhoretz. These men are variously characterized as anti-Semites....
Reply
-
-
0%
hyperbola1 year, 5 months ago
Actually it is worth while to look at a more recent count made by a company that even Bush cites. They come up with over a million. Seems the Wall Street Journal is still publishing zioncon propaganda.
None Dare Call It Genocide
How comfy we are all in the United States, as we engage in living-room debates about the US occupation of Iraq, whether "we" are bringing them freedom and whether their freedom is really worth the sacrifice of so many of our men and women. We talk about whether war aims have really been achieved, how to exit gracefully, or whether we need a hyper-surge to finish this whole business once and for all.
But there's one thing Americans don't talk about: the lives of Iraqis, or, rather, the deaths of Iraqis.
Reply-
0%
hyperbola1 year, 5 months ago
Well, it's about time that we think about the numbers. Opinion Research Business, a highly reputable polling firm in the UK, has just completed a detailed and rigorous survey of Iraqis. In the past, the company's results have been touted by the Bush administration whenever the data looks favorable to the US cause.
Here is the grisly bottom line: more than one million people have been murdered in Iraq since the US invasion, according to the ORB.
In Baghdad, where the US presence is most pronounced, nearly half of households report having lost a family member to a killing of some sort. Half the deaths are from gunshot wounds, one-fifth from car bombs, and one-tenth from aerial bombs.
The total number of dead exceeds the hugely well-publicized Rwandan genocide in 1994.
You are welcome to inspect the detailed data.
Reply -
0%
BB641 year, 5 months ago
Genocide? Oh brother, you've spent to many years in college and not enough in the real world. If the USA really was in that business, there wouldn't be an arab population left in the middle east after 9-11.
This fight was confusing. We went in there on fault info provided by our CIA. Leave it to the CIA to fail and not have to answer for it. However, outside of the nuclear question, Iraq did have chemical and bio weapons. Saddam was supposed get rid of them by his cease fire agreement of 1990. He didn't. In fact he fired several missiles into Saudi and violated the agreement many times. During Clinton's time, he should have been removed, because Bill didn't call him on it, many more people died by Saddam's hand. The world will be better off in the long run with Saddam dead.
Reply
-
-
-
anioklyComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
BB641 year, 5 months ago
Come back? I saw him on PBS last night talking about the JFK special. You know he's changed his story once again. At the time he was only reporting on his viewing of the Zebruder film. Amazing. Even unemployed he's still trying to rewrite the news.
Reply
-
-
0%
albionperfides1 year, 5 months ago
Numbers, numbers, mind numbing numbers. In WW1 on the first day of the first battle of the Somme on 1 June 1916 the official report said that all objectives had been achieved and casualties light. In reality 20,000 men died and 40,00 were injured. Think about that. By the end of Somme 1 in November 1916 400,000 men had died in the British Army. How many Germans? You cannot believe official statistics: take it as a given that they lie. You would be well advised to treat all US government information as lies. If only we in the UK had known the truth in 1916 the war would have been stopped in its tracks.
Reply -
0%
pcknowledge1 year, 5 months ago
The CIA trained Saddam & gave him weapons. The CIA used Saddam for some 40 yrs to do their dirty work in the Middle East for them. Saddam was just a pawn the CIA used. Saddam turned against the CIA & invaded Kuwait for their oil because he got greedy. In Iraq, Saddam was killing those who opposed him, there is no accurate estimate of how many he killed, but not as many as people claim. If he had, Iraq's population would not be as high as it was before Bush announced the war. If Saddam had killed that many, Iraq's population would have been a lot loss then it was prior to the war. Under Saddam's rule, Iraq was much safer then it is now. Civilians where working, going about their business, schools where open. Civilians where also free to leave Iraq when Saddam was in power.
Reply -
0%
pcknowledge1 year, 5 months ago
Iraq was sanctioned many times to halt their nuclear development & get rid of any biological & chemical weapons they had. Over a span of several yrs, WMD Inspectors combed Iraq inside out. Prior to the war, Weapons Inspectors where very outspoken & made it clear that Saddam did not have WMD's. From my recollection, Weapons Inspector Hans Blix was the most outspoken & repeatedly said Iraq did not have WMD's. And a war in Iraq could not be justified by any claim that Saddam has WMD's. If Saddam had WMD's, him & his people would have used them when the Bush led war began. But they did not have any & therefore did not use any.
Reply -
0%
NelsonR1 year, 5 months ago
Regardless of the spin with the Republican conservatives they themselves cannot be proud of George Idiot Bush with his war and Republican thinking. Nobody can be that insane or are they? This war is longer than WWII with no end in sight yet BoBo and his ilk refuse to lose face but refuse accepting plain old facts.
That is why a Republican will never win in the next election except where the Evangelicals outnumber sane people. You ever thought why these religious creatures adore nationalism and war, personally I'm lost. Do they read scripture or do they interpret it into a war book?
Republicanism today is hypocrisy, deficit spending, corruption, nepotism, cronyism, boy have they lost their way but like I said next election they will be "spanked".
Reply -
0%
icono11 year, 5 months ago
The whole concept of predicting war casualties, esp in an active combat zone, on a mathematical 'model' of projected deaths is fallacious and in actuality probably has a very high margin of error.
This reminds me of the time during Viet-Nam that McNamara etal., mathematically decided that if a GI shot 100 bullets from his gun then the GI had to of killed at least one NVA and hopefully 2 or more; hence the infamous body counts and the ubiquitious but hard to verify reports of 'blood trails'.
To actually have a valid body count in any war is impossible.
Even 'eyewitness' body count reports are prone to exageration or denial.
Reply-
0%
NelsonR1 year, 5 months ago
icono - Agreed in Vietnam the body count totals were corrupt to say the least. That's why I myself never believe that line in Iraq coming from the military itself, well except the civilian deaths that occur daily.
Vietnam from the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which we all know now never occurred. Iraq and all the WMD's lying around and we all know now never there.
I wonder if that adage applies, "Three strikes and you are out".
What insane war will our politicos have us involved in next?
Reply
-
-
0%
billcorno1 year, 5 months ago
Hey, a few hundred thousand here, a few hundred thousand there. What's the difference?
So the WSJ has changed ownership, hasn't it? Me thinks it's gotten a little further to the righty-right right.
Reply -
-
0%
akarra1 year, 5 months ago
For my friends on the Right: I know responding to every Leftist comment sharpens debating skills, and some of your comebacks are terrific and I'm envious - I wish I were as witty as many of you.
But seriously, whenever you're challenged on something on this site, just ask the person making the challenge whether we need to know the truth about 9/11 or not. I guarantee 9 out of 10 times you'll get a response that will make you queasy, and you won't feel the need to debate. Furthermore, any objective observer reading the comments will probably side with you by default, even if your antagonist can prove the existence of God.
Reply -
0%
Itachirumon1 year, 5 months ago
"just ask the person making the challenge whether we need to know the truth about 9/11 or not. I guarantee 9 out of 10 times you'll get a response that will make you queasy, and you won't feel the need to debate."
Gee, akarra that's funny because I think we DO need to know the truth about 9/11. Here you have it folks, akarra equated the desire to know the truth about 9/11 with something vile enough to make your stomach turn. Furthermore I can think of at least thirty other liberals on this site who also want to know the truth, in case you tried to call me the exception to the rule. Your 90% statistic is pure weapon-grade bullcrap and your logic is not only logicaly unsound, it isn't even logically valid.
Reply -
0%
IcCaRus1 year, 5 months ago
i love the way the sock puppets act like this makes a difference. how they act like the deaths of 150,000 people doesnt matter or something.
no one knows for sure... but lets just assume its true... Lancet is wrong, this study is right, there, happy?
ITS STILL OVER 100,000 DEAD!!! stop acting like they dont matter!
for the (self)richeous out there, WWJD? ill tell what He'd do, hed MOURN the loss of 100,000 of his children, NOT act like "its less that the original claim, so its ok"
NO, ITS NOT OK.....
100,000 PEOPLE ARE DEAD!
Reply -
0%
IcCaRus1 year, 5 months ago
i see BooBoo has been drive-by negging all my comments... 1 question BooBoo... why not actually dispute anythng ive said? ANY1 can neg... how bout an actual comment about the things i said? how can you, in good conscious, neg a comment that decried the deaths of over 100,000 people? have you NO conscious? do these people NOT matter to you? i bet they matter to the God cons always site to back up their actions!
Reply -
0%
TonyByron1 year, 5 months ago
I remember that Lancet report clearly as I was spammed from what appeared to be a Lancet email address.
The numbers were totally unbelievable then and still are today.
I hadn't heard of Soros' involvement. Imagine if a company, say like Exxon, funded a study, say on climate research. I would guess there might be some stones cast. ;)
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.