porn …

The MSM the blogosphere , and Bush himself have been trying to make sense of (and come to grips with) the report that was released recently putting the number of Iraqi civillians killed in Iraq since the US-led invasion……

Whatever the actual number is (and it’s probably closer to Iraq Body Count’s figure than to Lancet’s), it’s much more than most of us expected

I believe just about everyone (except Allah) EXPECTED at least 50,000 civilian deaths. Most left wing lunatics were predicting more than that during the initial invasion. Here we are 3.5 years after that initial invasion and we have an astonishingly low civilian casualty count.

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention….

The Liberal Avenger

Some people think that it’s best to just ignore the unpleasant stuff
A study (link) published in Lancet, arguably the most prestigious medical journal in the world, estimates that the Iraq war has caused 655,000 Iraqi deat…

GregH probably disagrees.Being one of the useful idiots on the left, he makes such pithy (but ignorant) comments like “[h]alf a million dead. Surely a small price to pay for “freedom,”

The anti-war movement can only succeed (and has traditionally operated) from a so-called “moral high ground,” were corpses are used as capes that the useful idiots drape around their shoulders in high moral theater.

They attempt to “shame” America into not fighting or not fighting to win by attempting use US casualties to convert bulk of America into supporting their political cause.

Which is why they ALWAYS use a display such as “The Empty Boots,” a pair for each of the fallen in an attempt to “shock” the body politic into “cutting and running” from a war we’ve already won.

This is why they try to assign the laurel of “absolute moral authority” to Cindy Sheehan, as if “Mother Sheehan” is the ONLY person who can judge or approve of the war.

GregH and the rest of the leftist useful idiots don’t give a damn about casualties, ours or theirs. Dead bodies are nothing but tools to obtain a political agenda to these ghouls. And that agenda is really nothing other than treasonous.

Wait, just glancing back… are you accepting the majority of tallies that say around 50k, but saying that AP ignored the initial predictions by saying essentially that the 50k was more than anyone expected, when clearly a lot of people (especially anti-war folks) were predicting much higher? Upon a second read, it could be my misunderstanding of what you were initially trying to say. I was getting the impression that you were trying to say that the count was much higher than the 50k. By the way, I may actually not be making any sense at this point because I’m practically asleep at this point.

LGF have video of the Lancet editor. Given the methodology of their new study, which is not a body count, but a poll of chosen households, who would ever suspect this editor of choosing the “right” households? Me. And, I’m sure, anyon…

Apparently it’s time for another election soon, as the Lancet publishes yet another obviously inaccurate study on mortality in Iraq. Tim Lambert gets some homework to do….

Allahpundit, what if the democrats take back neither the Senate, nor the House in this election year where everything is reportedly going their way? Will it then be time to write off the Democratic Party as a party of relevance, or shall we blame it on the Bush/Cheney/Haliburton/Rove/Libby/Rice/VRWC diety for accomplishing the impossible?

Blame it on my advanced years, but I can read, and interpret when ‘facts’ are being skewed, and there are less ‘facts’ being reported this year than in any previous year that I can recall.

DannoJyd on October 11, 2006 at 6:40 PM

My take (if you care) Dannojyd on that issue, is that the Democratic Party is all but completely finished if they don’t take at least one house this election.

Blame it on my advanced years, but I can read, and interpret when ‘facts’ are being skewed, and there are less ‘facts’ being reported this year than in any previous year that I can recall.

The headline is “Army: Troops to Stay in Iraq Until 2010″

If that weren’t a candidate for this year’s most dishonest headline, I might agree with you. But the first three paragraphs of the story say:

The U.S. Army has plans to keep the current level of soldiers in Iraq through 2010, the top Army officer said Wednesday, a later date than Bush administration or Pentagon officials have mentioned thus far.

The Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, cautioned against reading too much into the planning, saying troops levels could be adjusted to actual conditions in Iraq. He said it is easier to hold back forces scheduled to go there than to prepare and deploy units at the last minute.

“This is not a prediction that things are going poorly or better,” Schoomaker told reporters. “It’s just that I have to have enough ammo in the magazine that I can continue to shoot as long as they want us to shoot.”

Sure, if no one reads anything but the headline, it creates an awful impression. If anyone reads the actual story, which is about contingency plans the Pentagon always has in its back pockets, they will be convinced anew of the mendacity of the Associated Press.

By the way Allah, are you bi-polar? You seem especially sensitive to propaganda that hasn’t yet been answered and you’re taking news reports at face value more often these days.