Before I call this NYT writer a liar, help me confirm this

[antiimperialist]

Stephen Farrell from the NY Times reported on July 31st that the death toll for July was expected to be the "lowest in 8 months". He cited the website Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. But as I write this, the updated figure for July is 89, higher than January, February and March.

What's going on?

[Unvanguard]

1. US death count. 80 US versus 81 US. n/t

[antiimperialist]

2. What's your source? And why does it say 89?

In the website? Were more casualties reported in early August? This happens sometimes.

[sandnsea]

4. US plus UK

You're looking at a total figure, not just the US figure.

[sandnsea]

3. One less???

Don't even challenge the 89 figure. Ask him how he can stand knowing that he led people to believe there was improvement in Iraq when the truth is that there was just ONE less death in July than in Feb or Mar. That's the kind of manipulative shit that needs to stop. The rat bastard.

[snowbear]

5. He shows 80 Americans, 8 UK Troops, and 1 other Coalition Troop (unk country) = 89

Those guys that run that site do an amazing job, and if you ever have any questions, they'll respond right back!

Very cool group of people over there!

[sandnsea]

6. 81 Americans in Feb & Mar

Which I'm guessing is where he gives himself permission to say the 80 killed in July is the lowest in 8 months. One less is all it is. It ought to be written as back to the figures of 8 months ago rather than leaving the impression there was a significant reduction in July. That's where people get the idea the surge is working, shoddy reporting like this article. I don't understand what kind of morals people have, when they do this sort of thing.

[robcon]

7. He's not a liar.

Although his point is pretty small.

[unhappycamper]

8. From icasualties.org

Month . US deaths
7-2007 80 8 1 89 2.87 31
7-2006 43 1 2 46 1.48 31
7-2005 54 3 1 58 1.87 31
7-2004 54 1 3 58 1.87 31
7-2003 48 1 0 49 1.58 31

Prior 8 months
7-2007 80 8 1 89 2.87 31
6-2007 101 7 0 108 3.6 30
5-2007 126 3 2 131 4.23 31
4-2007 104 12 1 117 3.9 30
3-2007 81 1 0 82 2.65 31
2-2007 81 3 1 85 3.04 28
1-2007 83 3 0 86 2.77 31
12-2006 112 1 2 115 3.71 31
11-2006 70 6 2 78 2.6 30


He is correct. I'm not a mathematician, but it seems that this asswipe is cherry picking the facts. Compare apples and apples next time.