This story is archived
The Lancet's Political Hit - Bogus Iraq casualty numbers exposed »
Posted by: bobo-in-texas 1 year, 10 months agoThree 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 »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 190
-
bobo-in-texas
Jan. 11, 2008, 10 a.m."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?
-
Endoscopy
Jan. 11, 2008, 10:54 a.m.BoBo you hit the nail on the head. The left seems to like lies. Especially by calling others liars.
-
anioklyComment has been removed: Spammer
-
Dicax_Maximus
Jan. 11, 2008, 11:47 a.m.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....
-
FormidableComment has been removed: Hard Banned
-
Wolfie2007
Jan. 11, 2008, 12:48 p.m.Well, we all know why the left does these things, don't we?
It is for POWER, sheer unalduterated POWER. Nothing else matters to them,of course, truth is their first victem.
-
1-2-Oscar
Jan. 11, 2008, 2:01 p.m.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.
-
jovial
Jan. 11, 2008, 2:07 p.m.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.
-
bobo-in-texas
Jan. 11, 2008, 2:44 p.m.Tessy, for the reason stated by me above.
BTW, it's good to see you actually comment on an article.
-
1-2-Oscar
Jan. 11, 2008, 1:59 p.m."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.
-
-
NelsonR
Jan. 11, 2008, 2:25 p.m.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.
-
bobo-in-texas
Jan. 11, 2008, 3:20 p.m.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.
-
hyperbola
Jan. 11, 2008, 3:29 p.m.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.
-
BB64
Jan. 11, 2008, 5:02 p.m.Wow an anti-George Bush group plants a fake story with fake numbers just to discredit the President. Does Dan Rather work for this firm too?
-
albionperfides
Jan. 11, 2008, 5:49 p.m.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.
-
pcknowledge
Jan. 11, 2008, 5:53 p.m.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.
-
pcknowledge
Jan. 11, 2008, 5:58 p.m.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.
-
NelsonR
Jan. 11, 2008, 7:25 p.m.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".
-
icono1
Jan. 11, 2008, 7:41 p.m.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.
-
billcorno
Jan. 11, 2008, 9:47 p.m.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.
-
Sock_Puppet
Jan. 11, 2008, 10:34 p.m.Hey BoBo, I'm curious why this wasn't marked as an Opinion piece?
-
akarra
Jan. 11, 2008, 11:19 p.m.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.
-
Itachirumon
Jan. 12, 2008, 5:02 a.m."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.
-
IcCaRus
Jan. 12, 2008, 8:26 a.m.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!
-
IcCaRus
Jan. 12, 2008, 10:58 a.m.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!
-
TonyByron
Jan. 12, 2008, 11:55 a.m.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. ;)
All 193 comments are shown.
Submit a Story
Advertisement
