USA Today (1/12/11) continues the tradition of dishonest reporting on the number of civilian casualties in Iraq. In a front-page article, reporter Tom Vanden Brook writes:
Estimates vary among organizations that have tried to count civilian dead, according to a review last year by the Congressional Research Service. The Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights reported that 85,694 Iraqi civilians died from insurgent attacks from 2004 through 2008. The Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, estimated that more than 111,000 Iraqis died from war-related incidents from 2003 through 2010.
So estimates vary between about 85,000 and 111,000, right? Wrong. As the Congressional Research Service report (10/7/10) that USA Today cites makes clear, the highest estimate from a credible source is over 1 million–that’s the number from ORB (9/07), a respected British polling firm. That number is in line with the Johns Hopkins researchers (Lancet, 10/11/06) whose epidemiological survey came up with a likely total of 600,000 violent deaths for an earlier phase of the war.
Different groups, using different approaches to the complicated task of estimating loss of life in a war zone, have come up with a broad range of numbers for the death toll in Iraq. USA Today, however, seems to be using a simple guideline for whether to include such numbers in its reporting: Do they make the U.S. look good?
That’s the only reportorial approach that could justify the story’s inclusion of this bit of self-serving, evidence-free handwaving:
Despite the imprecision, [Pentagon spokesperson Col. Dave] Lapan said the military believes insurgents killed far more civilians than U.S. and allied forces have in Iraq. However, the military is unable to quantify the claim, he said.
No public ceremony yet for the innocent dead who happen to have lived on the wrong side of a political border.
Political speakers of the pro-war parties declare which deaths are to be mourned and which are to be celebrated. When the mentally stable are so easily manipulated, how can the unstable be expected to see through these pretensions?
Calls for civility by the pro-war parties are blatantly self serving and hypocritical; only their political interests matter before a mourning crowd of potential voters.
The purely emotional victimization of emotional victims is conforming to the pattern of politics established after the 9/11 tragedy.
Nice campaign speech Obama. That should be good for a few points in the polls despite the rising number of home foreclosures. And dead Iraqis.
I have heard millions were killed(3?)During the war with Iran.A million more under attacks by Saddam.Fifteen hundred a week in prisons right up till the war.Throw in a couple tens of thousands more for good measure.Chemical attacks etc.Then comes our heavy foot.At least 50,ooo men under arms dead. Countless collateral loss of life.Then came the insurgency.In such a time where the lines are blurred more death upon death..
As of now friends that are in Iraq tell me there are days when the streets are filled with weddings.The worst is behind. Impatience is all around for things to move faster,and that is a good thing.The real death toll continues to decline and is now only a shadow of when Saddam lived.Iraq is rebuilding.How many died is an important question.How and why- more so.Do i believe the US fought this war with its chief aim toward minimizing civilian casualties.YES i do.History will judge how far we have come in that ability.
And the Rothschilds that create all this terror are not mentioned?