Have 600,000 Iraqis died violently since 2003?

I don't see how that's a response to my comment. You didn't "point out an anomaly", you made a statement about the study that was 100% false. Here it is again:

Absolutely false. What purpose does it serve your argument to say false things about the study?

Nice euphamism. They're not bombing people with an illegal chemical weapon; they're "illuminating" them.

Fascinating, but irrelevant. Let me be more direct. I'm challenging your "dropping leaflets in Iraq" claim. The last time we did that was during the Clinton years, warning Iraqis not to fire on airplanes enforcing the no-fly zone. We have not dropped any leaflets during this Iraq conflict.

Firstly, in 92% of cases, researchers were able to obtain death certificates for reported victims.

Indeed, the numbers are extrapolated from a sample. That's a basic statistical technique with a proven track record. There's not a single field of science or medicine that doesn't do that, and you accept statistical sampling in every single instance - except for this one, where you have a partisan axe to grind.

Since when? We invaded Iraq on the premise that Saddam was murdering thousands. How many of those bodies do you think we had ever recovered? We've only recovered maybe 1 in 20 since the invasion.

Seems to me you were perfectly happy to accept conclusions of death sans corpus when it fit your political agenda. Now all of a sudden, you need the bodies right in front of you for proof? That's nonsense.

Or, perhaps, buried all together quickly. You know, kind of a "mass grave." Gosh, where have I heard that term before?

It really is a lot of dead people. I know it's hard for you to believe, since your talk radio stations keep telling you how much "progress" Iraq has made.

But they're lying to you. Iraq is in the middle of a catastrophic civil war. 50,000 Iraqis flee the country each month. 50,000! Look, if you don't want to take my word for it, take the word of an actual Iraqi

Laura Ingram or Sean Hannity, because they're trying to tell you how swimmingly things are going in Iraq. It's crucial to their propaganda that you believe Iraq is a success, that Bush actually succeeded there. If they were to actually tell you the truth, you would know that Bush's war plan failed in Iraq.

I simply don't understand how you can say that this isn't being reported. Like I said, it's all over the "liberal media" that you ignore in favor of your conservative radio echo chambers. No wonder you don't see it.

Well, here's some:

Don't you get it, yet? Everybody knows about this but you. It's been all over the news for years.

The reason you don't know that is because you ignore the mainstream media - you think it's liberal so you don't pay attention to it.

The reason you don't know about the mass graves - the ones after Saddam

Laura Ingram and Michael Medved are doing all they can to make sure you don't learn the truth. Part of that is that they never ever mention it themselves. Another part is the discrediting of the mainstream media as "liberal" so that you learn not to pay any attention to it.

Can't you see how you've been used?

nobody likes America anymore. Didn't you wonder about that, why we're so hated?

US forces err so much on the side of caution that in many cases it is detrimental to the mission, or scrubs the mission completly. For instance, my convoy was hit by a SAF (small arms fire) and RPG attack initiated by an IED. The shooters popped a rounds at us for a few seconds, threw down their rifles, then conducted retrograde (that means they ran, standard shoot, scoot and boogie). When the Apaches that were giving us cover closed in on the running individuals, they couldn't engage them because they had no weapons in had, even though they were shooting at us 2 minutes before. Insurgents use our ROE against us very effectively.

Yes, someone might catch a stray bullet from our return fire, but it isn't mass casualties like your message seems to conclude.

Questioning the motivation of the experiment.

I do, however, have a problem with the fact that out of 1,849 households, only 545 homes were asked to produce some sort of documentation about the family member(s) that allegedly died.

The other problem is that no other study conducted, studies from other reputable sources, have no where near the figure presented by the Lancet reort, and only the Lancet report. The most generous estimate does not exceed 50,000 total deaths. The lower figures would certainly seem consistent with news reports. As I pointed out, if over 400 people were dying daily and on average, there should be some evidence of that.

Even taking into consideration where sectarian violence has caused the mass murder of, say, 40 Shiites or Sunnis in a given night, and those bodies are not found days, weeks, or months later than the actual time of death, even then the estimate of over 400 people a day, for 1,305 days straight, seems like grossly improportionate figure.

Yeah, but how can you account for them until you FIND them dead???

. If over 400 people were dying every single day for 1,305 days, we would hear reports more closely akin to: "Sectarian violence kills 240 in Fallujah, Brittish and US forces exchange gun fire with insurgents killing 190."

Oh, I have no doubt that the insurgents know very well the military's SOP's and rules of engagement and exploit that every chance they can-- such as you described. This is the type of underreporting that goes on. And that's why I've been saying that there is a clever spin on things to paint the false picture that coalition forces are out there indiscriminantly spraying the street in hail of gun fire.

He was saying that that is what the news sounds like, but that if 400 people a day were dying the reports would be more like "80 civilians dead after being caught in crossfire as coalition troops battle insurgents. 100 die in indiscriminate airstrike".

4 people were slain in an incident involving a roadside bomb in Anbar Province today due to the increasing sectarian violence. As well, 9 Iraqis were killed today when a US Apache helicopter unwittingly sent three hellfire rockets into a suspected insurgent stronghold.

you wouldn't be getting reports with such low numbers as a whole days reporting if the actual number of deaths was ~400/day.

He said if casualties were that high you wouldn't be hearing reports with the low figures he suggested. You then replied saying that you did hear such reports. If what you meant to say was "No, the reports I hear have much higher figures" then you didn't do it very well.

I'm not making things up about the study.

Psychological operations employing the use of leaflets

I do, however, have a problem with the fact that out of 1,849 households, only 545 homes were asked to produce some sort of documentation about the family member(s) that allegedly died.

As I pointed out, if over 400 people were dying daily and on average, there should be some evidence of that.

Any number of things could have happened, such as they've been kidnapped and are being held hostage, they've fled Iraq or are living in a less hostile region, etc.

We have recovered thousands, and hundreds more are presumed dead.

If someone is missing you start an investigation. You don't just say, "Well, their dead. I know it.

I've posted just the opposite from Iraqi sources, sources that were once under Saddam's control. It seems we have conflicting views.

Excuse the irony, but wouldn't the opposite true of liberal pundits?

If over 400 people were dying every single day for 1,305 days, we would hear reports more closely akin to: "Sectarian violence kills 240 in Fallujah, Brittish and US forces exchange gun fire with insurgents killing 190."

Let me save you some wondering. About 1,000 Iraqis die a day.

When you say 1,000 Iraqis die per day, do you mean in total (an additional 600 per day) or do you mean in addition to this?

Good afternoon, everybody. I'd like to give you an update on how I see the mission here, and then Zal and I will take your questions.A situation -- this will come as no surprise -- the situation here in Iraq remains difficult and complex. And I'm sure for the folks back in the United States trying to look at this, it looks very confusing and very hard to understand. I'm not sure I can cut through all that, but let me try.Several factors add to the complexity that we're now seeing. First, since the elections in December, we've seen the nature of the conflict evolving from what was an insurgency against us to a struggle for the division of political and economic power among the Iraqis. The bombing of the al-Askari mosque in Samarra in February heightened this.Second, there's several groups here that are working actively to upset and disrupt the political process. The first, al Qaeda and the Iraqis that are supporting them, have an active strategy of fomenting sectarian violence. In the aftermath of Zarqawi's death, they've remained wounded but lethal.Second, the death squads and the more militant illegal armed groups are attacking and murdering civilians in the center of the country and have caused security problems in the central and southern parts of the country.The third group is the resistance, the insurgents that primarily fight us and who claim to be the honorable resistance to foreign occupation in IraqAnd lastly, I'll mention the external actors, Iran and Syria. And both Iran and Syria continue to be decidedly unhelpful by providing support to the different extremists and terrorist groups operating inside Iraq.Now, if you add to all this the intensities of Ramadan and the fact that the new government is about 150 days old, it makes for a difficult situation, and it's likely to remain that way over the near term.Now, what I just described is a fundamental change from how we saw the threat and the general situation here last year. So people are rightfully asking how are you changing, what are you doing differently. I can tell you that we have continuously adapted to stay ahead of the enemy and to ensure that our service men and women have the proper tools and support they need to accomplish their missions. Think back two years, and I'm looking at some of the veterans here in the front row. Two years ago, some of you weren't even sure that we were going to have elections in January 2005. To get there, we made a judgment in mid-2004 that for successful elections we had to eliminate terrorist safe havens in Najaf, Samarra and Fallujah. Working with the Iraqis we did that, and on January 30th, 2005, the Iraqi people chose democracy.Immediately following those elections, we determined that we needed to enhance the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces to develop and to succeed in security operations. We began embedding transition teams with Iraqi units and partnering with Iraqi units in February of 2005, and we completed the whole transition to this new system by June. In the summer of 2005, we thought we saw the threat changing, and we set out to restore Iraqi control to the Syrian border to disrupt the flow of foreign fighters and suicide bombers coming into Iraq from Syria. To tough fights in Tall Afar and out the whole western Euphrates Valley, we succeeded with the Iraqis in restoring their control to that border by November as we had projected.Following the December elections and the Samarra mosque bombing, we saw the situation evolving, as I mentioned earlier. It's a much more complex environment, and it's one that will be resolved primarily by Iraqis but with our full support. We have also focused our collective security efforts on the capital and the center of the country, where the sectarian conflict is the greatest, while keeping pressure on al Qaeda and the resistance in the west and the north. Again, as we have done previously, we shifted forces from around the country to support our main effort, and we have also increased our targeting efforts against death squads to match our efforts against al Qaeda.On the political side, we have, as Zal mentioned, developed a political program to address the critical issues dividing the country. We've supported the prime minister's reconciliation initiatives and begun with the Iraqi government engagement with the resistance with a view toward decreasing violence and bringing them into the political process. Working on addressing the key issue of militias is proceeding. Resolution of the militia issue will require an integrated political military effort, and we are working with the government of Iraq to do that.Now underpinning all this change, all these adaptations have been two constants. The first is the continuing development of the Iraqi security forces, and the second is the continuing development of protective measures for our troops. During the battle of Fallujah, we had a handful of battalions in the Iraqi army, and they operated in support of us. Today, six of the 10 Iraqi divisions are in the lead; 30 of the 36 Iraqi brigades. Almost 90 of the 112 Iraqi battalions are in the lead, and we operate in support of them.We continue also make progress with the Iraqi police forces and are working with the minister of Interior on the reform of his ministry and to continue to transition Iraqi provinces to provincial control. The Iraqi security forces are in the fight, and in Ramadan alone they have lost over 300 martyrs in defense of their country. On the equipping side, the protection of our troops remain a paramount concern for us, and we have made significant strides in improving both the physical and electronic protection of our men and women.We will continue to adjust our tactics to meet and stay ahead of evolving conditions on the ground.Baghdad's a good example. The Baghdad security plan continues to have a dampening effect on sectarian violence, and we, the government of Iraq, and the coalition, are working aggressively to further reduce sectarian violence in the capital. The additional U.S. brigades that we've kept here have had a decisive effect, and the Iraqi security forces are having a significant impact as well.I'll remind you that the plan for Baghdad was: clear, protect build. Clear any Iraqi forces from the difficult areas and neighborhoods, protect those neighborhoods with Iraqi security forces so that the Iraqi government and the coalition forces could come in and build the local services that would improve the quality of life within the neighborhoods. Our ultimate intent is to help the citizens of Baghdad feel safe in their own neighborhoods, and this is not something that's going to happen overnight.The tearing down that our enemies do is infinitely easier than the building up that Iraq requires after three decades of neglect. But building is what Iraq needs, and we have committed $400 million already to projects in support of the Baghdad effort, with almost 600 more million dollars in additional projects to kick in here over the next couple of monthsMake no mistake about it, we are in a tough fight here in the center of the country and in Anbar province. But I think it's important to remind people that 90 percent of the sectarian violence in Iraq takes place in about a 30-mile radius from the center of Baghdad; and that secondly, 90 percent of all violence takes place in five provinces. This is not a country that is awash in sectarian violence. The situation is hard, but it's not a country that's awash in sectarian violence.The American people already know what a magnificent job the men and women of their armed forces are doing here, and we continue to be grateful for their continuing support. But they should also know that the men and women of the armed forces here have never lost a battle in over three years of war. That is a fact unprecedented in military history. They and our Iraqi security forces continue to carry the fight to the enemy every day, and I continue to be in awe of their courage, their agility, their resourcefulness, and their commitment. You can be confident that our service men and women are well-trained, well-equipped, and well-led.Finally, in closing, I'd say that our Iraqi partners continue to move forward steadily every day, and together we will defeat the divisive forces that are attempting to rip Iraq apart and deny the Iraqi people the security and the prosperity that they so well deserve after 35 years under Saddam Hussein. We will succeed in Iraq, but it will take patience, courage and resolve from all of us.Thank you all very much.

The source I'm citing is from the secret squirrel network, so I can't give you exact numbers, but its over 1,000 total civilian deaths per day during Ramadan.

Do you think that the numbers outside of Ramadan are significantly different than during (say by a factor of three)? The way I'm looking at it, it seems you are agreeing that 655,000 is an entirely feasable amount of deaths in Iraq.

I am very angry that there are people out there who might have been pursuaded by his illogical arguement that has been propogated all over the net by pro-war types.