Right-Wingers Can't Cover Up Iraq's Death Toll Catastrophe

[gonerail]

The warmongers who got us into Iraq are blaming everyone but themselves for the humanitarian disaster they created.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/74263/

[FisherRd]

I thought everyone from the BBC to the NYT's discredited the Lancet study?

Without having to read pages 2 and 3, what is the gist of the article? If it's anything other than "Yes, Soros funded a much maligned and incompetent study for political gain..." then why would they even bring that transparent embarrassment up again?

[kernwatch]

It is always painful to see how little concern there is about "native" casualties there are in countries the US invades.

Is there concern about the conservative now-estimates of 3926 Americans dead in Iraq? And the many thousands more who return with life-changing physical & mental injuries?

[FisherRd]

Is there concern about the conservative now-estimates of 3926 Americans dead in Iraq? And the many thousands more who return with life-changing physical & mental injuries?


Do you read anything other than foreclosures?
You can't turn on a newscast or open a paper without reading about the number of US maimed/wounded and KIA's.

It deserves to be covered and it is. Are you suggesting it isn't covered or that there isn't concern over it? If so, I think you're sadly mistaken.

[kernwatch]

Indeed . . . I do not hear regular reports on US injured in Iraq.

What is the latest reliable count?

Also, what is the latest reliable report of Iraqi war-related deaths & injuries?

[raoul duke]

I thought everyone from the BBC to the NYT's discredited the Lancet study?
It's never been discredited. Lancet, I believe, issued a revised statement as news outlets were distorting the numbers to match any number of predetermined outcomes. But the thesis that the war, up to that point, was more than possibly responsible for upwards of half-million deaths has never been been refuted. the science they used in coming to their conclusions was sound and reproducible.

Without having to read pages 2 and 3, what is the gist of the article? If it's anything other than "Yes, Soros funded a much maligned and incompetent study for political gain..." then why would they even bring that transparent embarrassment up again?
:rolleyes: