2006-10-11 06:33:32 · 18 answers · asked by david c 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He is objecting to an incorrect report estimating civilian deaths to be at over 600,000. The official toll from the Iraqi government is approxiamtely 65,000.
He is not denying anything, he is refuting a lie.
2006-10-11 06:36:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
The authors of a study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, (published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet), reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.
In summary, the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)
This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.
Few of the news reports on this study, however, noted what even the study itself did: that the margin of error for these statistics renders them practically meaningless.
2006-10-11 13:56:34 · answer #2 · answered by Cherie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm in no way, shape or form a supporter of Bush and his policies. However in fairness the casualty toll he is questioning is the 600,000 estimate that was just released. I question it too because it seems very high. I want to find out more about it before deciding if I think it has any validity.
2006-10-11 13:40:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The casualty toll in Iraq is estimated by Iraq as significantly less. And the best way to lose an argument is to be ill prepared to back it up. Do you simply believe everything you hear? I should hope not. There's obviously a huge difference between 30,000 and 650,000plus. That alone should alert you to question your resource as well.
2006-10-11 13:39:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
CLK is on correct whole report was a bit off kilter...
"But it is an estimate and not a precise count, and researchers acknowledged a margin of error that ranged from 426,369 to 793,663 deaths."
Always suspect any thing coming from the political left or right during an election time period.
2006-10-11 19:02:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He has been in this state of denial for a long time, anytime you feel that the economy of your country is just so great and everything is just beautiful something is terribly wrong. He has lied about so much, this is just another story to add to his historical fairy tales to read after he is long gone.
2006-10-11 13:41:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Tony Blair has learned a valuable lesson.
It's better to have a week man as an enemy than a friend.
Too late for his political career in the UK, though.
2006-10-11 13:37:46 · answer #7 · answered by imnogeniusbutt 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
If George Bush's lips are moving he is lieing, he knows full well how many people he has killed in a war based on a lie.
2006-10-11 13:42:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Oh, yes, most definitely!
Any casualty toll will be more accurate than the President's; after all, there is no one out there who might have an ax to grind as they gin up their own set of numbers, is there?
2006-10-11 13:38:13 · answer #9 · answered by Walter Ridgeley 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Always was. Rove told him to call the Democats the "party of cut and run"
BECAUSE Americans want a new plan for Iraq that Bush cannot and will not come up.
"I'll leave it up for future presidents to decide" on getting out of Iraq--Bush.
2006-10-11 13:36:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋