This is actually stunning. Eugene Robinson over at the Washington Post goes through all the problems with the study and arrives at the conclusion that Iraq is really in bad shape. He doesn't have any issues with the fact that the numbers are in all likelihood radically off. He doesn't have any problem with the fact that the study says its 95% sure that the true figure is somewhere between 400,000 and 900,000. No, for him
But the exact number is not the point. Rather, it's the scope and scale of the carnage.
Late last year President Bush gave an off-the-cuff estimate of 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths -- this after the administration had steadfastly refused to acknowledge even trying to count the Iraqi dead. Now the administration is willing to allow that perhaps 50,000 civilians have died. It is unclear whether any science at all has gone into these estimates or whether they were essentially pulled out of a hat.
Oh yes, Bush just tossed a number out there. One that is surprisingly in line with the number provided by the Iraqi government compiled from death certificates & morgues (which, as the Lancet study itself found, were probably at least 80% accurate, based on the actual numbers from the survey).
If the study's findings are flawed, then its critics should demonstrate how and why. But no one should dismiss these shocking numbers without fully examining them. No one should want to.
OK. How about starting with some of these people.
1 comment:
"If the study's findings are flawed, then its critics should demonstrate how and why. But no one should dismiss these shocking numbers without fully examining them. No one should want to."
I wholeheartedly agree. There is just so much unsubstantiated criticisms surrounding the study.
People need to understand that the best way to dispute the science is to also use science. Some do. Most don't.
Post a Comment