On the response to the 600,000 Iraqi dead

I’m stealing something else from Amanda at Pandagon this morning:

I find myself stunned at what moral monsters people have become in their earnest desire to be right about BushCo and the War on Terra. Brushing off 2.5% of the population dead to war is nothing, done automatically without a moment’s pause to consider what it means to have 655,000 individual, unnecessary, unjust tragedies dealt to a single nation. I wonder, when I read people just brush off 655,000 dead people like this, if they take a moment to remember what it’s like to have someone you love die. And if they’ve even had to deal with something as brutal as a sudden, unexpected death. And if, on top of that, the death was preventable, attributable only to human malfeasance. I’ve never had someone close to me murdered, but I did have a family member murdered when I was a toddler and the psychic damage done to my family is palpable. The human mind is capable of many things, but such unnecessary loss is really beyond what we can square away in our mind. I can’t imagine that sort of tragedy multipled over and over so many times—according to the War Room post, the equivalent for America would be an unimaginable 7.4 million dead. For no reason.

They blow off the lies that got us into the war. They blow off the fact that their beloved BushCo is dissolving our basic civil liberties. They blow off torture in the prisons. Now they blow off 655,000 dead, and indeed seem incapable of understanding that each of these dead was loved by someone, that each one is not just the loss of a human life, but the ruin to other human lives. It’s not that they blow it off, but they blow it off so quickly, so thoughtlessly. 655,000 dead people isn’t 655,000 dead people to the hive of wingnuts, it’s a low blow to Dear Leader, it’s mere pandering to people who still have a moral compass.

They didn’t even pause. They just wondered if this was good for their beloved masters or not.


President Bush
, for his part, had this to say about the report:

No, I don’t consider it a credible report, neither does General Casey and neither do Iraqi officials. I do know that a lot of innocent people have died and it troubles me and grieves me. And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence. I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they’re willing to — you know, that there’s a level of violence that they tolerate.

Tolerate? Is that why 71% want us to leave, 61% support attacks on our troops, and 58% say the violence would decrease if we would leave? The Iraqi people do not support this, the world does not support this, and any American who has pulled their head out of their ass for ten seconds doesn’t support this war. The only people tolerating this war are the war criminals in the White House, their lap dogs, and people who beleive their right to feel safe outweighs the rest of the world’s right to exist. This report is just another nail; the facts have been in for a long time. Anyone who still supports this war and this President is an ethically bankrupt monster.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us
  • Fark
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • StumbleUpon

2 Responses to “On the response to the 600,000 Iraqi dead”

  1. The Guardian has an explanation of how they arrived at that number and what it should mean to us.

    […]
    The results speak for themselves. There was a sample of 12,801 individuals in 1,849 households, in 47 geographical locations. That is a big sample, not a small one. The opinion polls from Mori and such which measure political support use a sample size of about 2,000 individuals, and they have a margin of error of +/- 3%. If Margaret Beckett looks at the Labour party’s rating in the polls, she presumably considers this to be reasonably reliable, so she should not contribute to public ignorance by allowing her department to disparage “small samples extrapolated to the whole country”. The Iraq Body Count website and the Iraqi government statistics are not better measures than the survey results, because one of the things we know about war zones is that casualties are under-reported, usually by a factor of more than five.

    And the results were shocking. In the 18 months before the invasion, the sample reported 82 deaths, two of them from violence. In the 39 months since the invasion, the sample households had seen 547 deaths, 300 of them from violence. The death rate expressed as deaths per 1,000 per year had gone up from 5.5 to 13.3.

    Talk of confidence intervals becomes frankly irrelevant at this point. If you want to pick a figure for the precise number of excess deaths, then (1.33% - 0.55%) x 26,000,000 x 3.25 = 659,000 is as good as any, multiplying out the difference between the death rates by the population of Iraq and the time since the invasion. But we’re interested in the qualitative conclusion here.

    That qualitative conclusion is this: things have got worse, and they have got a lot worse, not a little bit worse. Whatever detailed criticisms one might make of the methodology of the study (and I have searched assiduously for the last two years, with the assistance of a lot of partisans of the Iraq war who have tried to pick holes in the study, and not found any), the numbers are too big. If you go out and ask 12,000 people whether a family member has died and get reports of 300 deaths from violence, then that is not consistent with there being only 60,000 deaths from violence in a country of 26 million. It is not even nearly consistent.
    […]

  2. Bush has lied about the numbers for a long time. It is all about keeping a competitor out of the oil business. Sounds like Iran is next.

Leave a Reply