10/30/2004|||109913454066559982||||||

IRAQ WAR DEATHS

My initial reaction to the Lancet (free reg required) report on civilian casualty figures was sceptical, to say the least. (I was even more dubious about the October Surprise timing.) Now Instapundit links to a Chicago Boyz debunking of the methodology. (It's worth scrolling through the comments, pro and con, by the way.) Perhaps the Lancet figures will prove to be correct in the end - in which case they are indeed disturbing - but I was struck by the fact that in all the media reporting I saw yesterday no hard questions were asked.

David Adesnik, at Oxblog, has his own thoughts:

"I just came across the WaPo story on the Lancet study and thought it was rather interesting. In order to provide balance, the Post plays off The Lancet against a military expert at Human Rights Watch who describes The Lancet's figure as "inflated" and "a reach". Now how often do you get someone from Human Rights Watch telling you that civilian casualty figures have been exaggerated?"

|||Clive|||http://clivedavis.blogspot.com/2004/10/iraq-war-deaths-my-initial-reaction-to.html|||10/30/2004 11:59:00 am|||||||||

|||