US Christian leader 'shocked' at Iraq death-toll study statistics

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.eni.ch/articles/display.shtml?06-0813

New York (ENI). The head of the US National Council of Churches says he is shocked by the results of a new study estimating that more than 600 000 Iraqis may have died as a result of the US-led invasion of March 2003.

"The perpetrators of this war can no longer tell us this is 'collateral damage'," said the Rev. Robert Edgar, NCC general secretary, a prominent opponent of the invasion of Iraq. "They must face up to the widespread death and destruction that is being inflicted daily upon innocent men, women and children." The study conducted by US and Iraqi epidemiologists has been disputed by President Bush who said its findings were not credible and its methodology "pretty well discredited".

[panader0]

1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Johns Hopkins and

Lancet that did the figures? How can you discount these two as "not credible"? What bush doesn't like is the timing of the release, just before the elections.

[Maraya1969]

4. I thought it was the Lancet also. They are the ones who reported

about the first 100,000 deaths.

(Writing that just shocked me. I wonder how many cities in the US have less than 640,000 people?

[NewJeffCT]

9. Just did some quick research on that

Baltimore has 636,000 people, Memphis 672,000. Imagine the entire city's population?

A bigger number than Boston, Denver, Charlotte or Seattle

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html

[katinmn]

24. The 400,000 killed in Darfur is called "genocide"

The 665,000 in Iraq died for Bush's error.

[1monster]

31. The population of the COUNTY I live in is just only a few thousand

more people than the death toll in Iraq... and I live in a fast growing portion of Florida...

[Webster Green]

5. "pretty well discredited"

By whom?

The thing just came out.

Chimp's blowing hot air.

[NewJeffCT]

10. Bush has been pretty much discredited for years now

so, that pretty much confirms the study.

[OneBlueSky]

25. really, now . . . he doesn't even know what the methodology WAS, . .

much less whether it has been "pretty well discredited" . . .

and if someone ever tried to explain it to him, I doubt very much that he'd understand it, much less be interested . . .

[Tigress DEM]

15. Here's the weasle..... about "not credible"

Bush isn't actually "lying" more like talking out of his rear. He isn't disputing the Lancet or JHU... the "method" he is dissing is because they used a "cluster sample" approach... ie since it is a war ravaged country where an actual body count is not reliable and where *ushco has been taking over hospitals and muzzling doctors with intimidation tactics.

So the weasel *ush is pulling is "they can't know the real death count because I got it hid good."


Kind of like the way the "polls show *ush could not have won 2004" but they weren't hard cold facts, just really intelligent predictions.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm

<snip>

The researchers spoke to nearly 1,850 families, comprising more than 12,800 people in dozens of 40-household clusters around the country.

Anti-US insurgents launch daily attacks with civilian casualties
Of the 629 deaths they recorded among these families since early 2002, 13% took place in the 14 months before the invasion and 87% in the 40 months afterward.

Such a trend repeated nationwide would indicate a rise in annual death rates from 5.5 per 1,000 to 13.3 per 1,000 - meaning the deaths of some 2.5% of Iraq's 25 million citizens in the last three-and-a-half years.

The researchers say that in nearly 80% of the individual cases, family members produced death certificates to support their answers.

[katinmn]

23. Johns Hopkins did the study. Lancet published it.

[boston bean]

29. john hopkins and mit, i think.

[Solly Mack]

2. It was never 'collateral damage' - it was always people dying

[Hosnon]

8. At the very least, it's simply 'damage' now...nothing collateral about it.

[panader0]

3. Gives a whole new meaning to "shock and awe"

[PSPS]

6. More horrible "journalism."

I suppose "Ecumenical News International" isn't exactly where one goes to find a real journalist, but this is still disgusting:

The study conducted by US and Iraqi epidemiologists has been disputed by President Bush who said its findings were not credible and its methodology "pretty well discredited".

The fact is that is hasn't been "discredited" at all. And putting Colter, limbaugh or another bush surrogate up there to just blurt out that it has, doesn't count. Why didn't the writer of this piece bother to spend an extra five minutes to fact-check one of bush's made-up facts and put in print that he's lying again?

While admittedly not up to "historical standards" (yet,) bush has his own holocaust going on here.

[Jcrowley]

7. Yea pretty awful

Now one can argue the outcome of the 655,000 figure, though I've yet to see a credible (or even serious) presentation refuting it, but the methodology is inarguably impeccable. The figure could be high but if so let's say it's only 410,000 dead with more to come does that make these arguing against this study feel better?

War crimes.

As well that's not the full text at the link. Go here to see full report:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2394330

[moc]

11. The researchers themselves provide a very comprehensive

discussion of the limitations of their own work. I read the whole study on Thursday night. It's very impressive. Yes, it has limitations, but all studies do. Here's what they said about limitations:

"All surveys have potential for error and bias. The extreme insecurity during this survey could have introduced bias by restricting the size of teams, the number of supervisors, and the length of time that could be prudently spent in all locations, which in turn affected the size and nature of questionnaires. Further, calling back to households not available on the initial visit was felt to be too dangerous. Families, especially in households with combatants killed, could have hidden deaths. Under-reporting of infant deaths is a wide-spread concern in surveys of this type.29,30 Entire households could have been killed, leading to a survivor bias. The population data used for cluster selection were at least 2 years old, and if populations subsequently migrated from areas of high mortality to those with low mortality, the sample might have over-represented the high-mortality areas. The miscommunication that resulted in no clusters being interviewed in Duhuk and Muthanna resulted in our assuming that no excess deaths occurred in those provinces (with 5% of the population), which probably resulted in an underestimate of total deaths. Families could have reported deaths that did not occur, although this seems unlikely, since most reported deaths could be corroborated with a certificate. However, certificates might not be issued for young children, and in some places death certificates had stopped being issued; our 92% confirmation rate was therefore deemed to be reasonable.

Large-scale migration out of Iraq could affect our death estimates by decreasing population size. Out-migration could introduce inaccuracies if such a process took place predominantly in households with either high or low violent death history. Internal population movement would be less likely to affect results appreciably. However, the number of individual households with in-migration was much the same as those with out-migration in our survey.

Although interviewers used a robust process for identifying clusters, the potential exists for interviewers to be drawn to especially affected houses through conscious or unconscious processes. Although evidence of this bias does not exist, its potential cannot be dismissed.31 Furthermore, families might have misclassified information about the circumstances of death. Deaths could have been over or under-attributed to coalition forces on a consistent basis. The numbers of non-violent deaths were low, thus, estimation of trends with confidence was difficult. Not sampling two of the Governorates could have underestimated the total number of deaths, although these areas were generally known as low-violence Governorates. Finally, the sex of individuals who had died might not have been accurately reported by households. Female deaths could have been under-reported, or there might have been discomfort felt in reporting certain male deaths.

The striking similarity between the 2004 and 2006 estimates of pre-war mortality diminishes concerns about people’s ability to recall deaths accurately over a 4-year period. Likewise, the similar patterns of mortality over time documented in our survey and by other sources corroborate our findings about the trends in mortality over time.1,5,32"

[SammyWinstonJack]

13. Plus 500,000 children from the sanctions.

:cry:

[fooj]

12. They used this "methodology" for Kosovo, Somalia and many more...

SUDDENLY, it's not credible? I see. Kinda like the Exit Polls...

:grr:

[Erika]

14. U.S. Christians should abhor this war of choice by W

Glad they are finally opening their eyes. It took them long enough.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

16. I wonder what the # of wounded, displaced, homeless, orphaned is?

The death toll from Hiroshima is estimated from 65,000 to 200,000 (more recent studies arrive at a greater number). 665,00 deaths in Iraq.

Where is the outrage at this mayhem perpetrated in Iraq in our name? And for what reason? WMD's? Saddam? "The Noble" Cause? Spread of Democracy? "The Mission"? Oil? What is the reason for this mayhem?

[flyarm]

17. JH and Lancet did the study and MIT funded it!! sooooooo

when little lord pissy pants says it is not credibile ..is he saying MIT and Johns Hopkins are not credible ..and lancet??


pissy pants is an ignoramous!

and always will be..and talk about credibility..he was not elected in 2000 and is still an illegitimate president!

[Marrak]

18. If that we were...

shocked...
<>
K&R
:kick:

[NAO]

19. Evangelicals believe the 'National Council of Churches' is Satan's Org.

I grew up in a fundy baptist church and they always said that Satan, the False Prophet, and the Antichrist were representative of the United Nations, the National Council of Churches, and the Pope, respectively.

[LiberalFighter]

20. Who told bush findings not credible? Sure as hell didn't read it himself!!

[williesgirl]

21. 92% have documented death certificates per study. Not creditble my ass.

[NMMNG]

22. Of course Chimpy disputes the facts

They show just what kind of monster he is.

[WinkyDink]

26. Well, THIS person is certainly late to the Immorality of an Illegal

Invasion party, wouldn't you say?

Would half as many deaths be OKAY by this "religious leader"?

[Hekate]

27. He was an outspoken opponent, as were all major US religious bodies

Go back and read the excerpt.

As it happens I was keeping track during the runup to the invasion of Iraq and almost every major religious governing board/council in the US came out publicly in opposition to Bush's warmongering. The one exception was the Southern Baptist Convention.

The message may not have gotten to the individual parishes and churches, but the governing bodies of Catholic Bishops, Presbyterians, Methodists, Unitarians, et al. were all opposed to Bush's war.

Hekate

[WinkyDink]

32. I Googled. Mea culpa, re: the Rev. Edgar. However, I don't think

tis excerpt was particularly precise in its wording, esp. the "collateral damage" reference.

[indepat]

28. Every American should be shocked and outraged but tens of millions

of Amerikuns don't give a diddledy-shit.

[malaise]

30. Bush and Blair's lies and spin

have been utterly and completely shattered.

The interview with "the incoming Chief of the General Staff and head of the armed forces, Sir Richard Dannatt", was the final dagger in BLIAR's heart and the Lancet report is a scathing indictment of Bush and Blair's genocide on a massive scale. They should be arrested for war crimes and sent to the Hague. They are fugging war criminals.

Here's a report from this morning's Independent - Ambush: How one interview blew apart Blair's disastrous foreign policy
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1873836.ece