PJ Media

More debunking leftwing arguments:

• “they could die of lack of sanitation”. The study explicitly asks what people died of, and “finds” 601.000 who died from violence. This is what we are discussing.

• US air strikes have been continuous yes, but NOT against civilian goals, as in the beginning of the war. By the way it since we have data of how many air strikes there have been we know that it would absurd figures of death per attack to get these figures.

• “we read each day about dead Iraqis”. Yes we do. The sum of all the civilian Iraqis reported dead in the media is 40-48.000 since the war began, not 601.000.

• “the right would attack Clinton if it was his war”. Maybe some would, I would not based on false figures. By the way there WERE exaggerated figures claiming the trade embargo killed 1 million Iraqi children in Iraq, and if I recall it was the LEFT that attacked the US and Clinton, not the right (the US later estimated fewer children died from these, but still in the hundreds of thousands. Of course this was Saddam’s fault, not Clinton and Albright)

• “OK maybe 601.000 is too high, I can’t defend the study, but let’s just split the difference and say 300.000 were killed”.

No. This is not how science works. You can’t get a idiotic figure using obviously flawed methodology and just discount it down. By the way this is the most likely propose of the study, in physiology called anchoring. You through out an absurdly high figure, even if people don’t believe it their mental estimate will go up.

I will ask again. Where are the 500.000+ violent death certificates issued by the Iraqi authorities?