George Bush: 30K Iraqis dead
December 12th, 2005 by MatthewI just read a Washington Post article about Bush’s speech today in Philly. It says:
After the speech ended early, Bush — in a rare move — took questions from the audience. When the president was asked about the number of Iraqi deaths in the war, he estimated 30,000 people have been killed since March 2003.
According to Reuters, a White House spokesman said Bush was giving a figure based on media reports and the number wasn’t an official estimate from the U.S. government.
I was under the impression from everything I’ve heard that this figure is far greater that 30,000. Has anyone seen the media reports the White House referenced and can anyone provide better figures on this so we can hold the White House to account on their ridiculous statement.
December 12th, 2005 at 5:18 pm
This is actually in keeping with IraqBodyCount.net’s current estimate of 27383-30892 “Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq.” Now this is of course only a reported number.
I do remember a study a few months ago that cited a much higher number, but I can’t find a reference now.
December 13th, 2005 at 10:00 am
There was a study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University and published in the medical journal, The Lancet, in October 2004, which estimated approximately 100,000 “excess deaths” in Iraq during the 18 months following the invasion. Most of these deaths were attributed to air strikes from coalition forces and most of those killed were women and children.
This study was widely criticized for methodologic flaws. But I heard an excellent report about it on This American Life, episode 300, 10/28/05, “What’s in a Number?” This report convinced me of the study’s truthfulness. You can (and should) listen to this entire episode of TAL online. Go to thisamericanlife.org.
In a story in the WP, a human rights watch analyst says he doesn’t believe the numbers, but in the TAL report, he explains that reporters asked him to comment on the study before he had actually read it and that he now believes it is credible.
The WP story is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html
The Lancet story is also online.