Too easy.

The 47 cluster points and 1,849 interviews is more than enough to get a legitimate number, just one with a high margin of error. (Which was part of the Lancet study initial report.)

As for the other report. “There could be ‘main street bias’, they said…” Could be? You are dismissing the report because someone said there could be a problem? Are you serious? There could be problems with any poll, it doesn’t mean you ignore them.

Dugger: “more American deaths in LA County than American deaths in Iraq”

Huh? Suddenly Iraqis dying doesn’t count.

And for the last time WE’RE COUNTING THE LITTLE BROWN PEOPLE IN IRAQ TOO.

An article in the Wall Street Journal by Steven Moore, who worked as a pollster for the coalition authorities in Iraq, attacked the sampling: “The key to the validity of cluster sampling is to use enough cluster points. In their 2006 report… the Johns Hopkins team says it used 47 cluster points for their sample of 1,849 interviews. This is astonishing: I wouldn’t survey a junior high school, no less an entire country, using only 47 cluster points.”

And on 20 October, Science Magazine reported the queries of researchers at Oxford and Royal Holloway universities. One of them, Sean Gourley of the Physics department at Oxford, said their studies “have found fundamental flaws [in the Lancet report] that lead to an over-estimation of the number of deaths. ”

One aspect they questioned was the selection of sample households chosen for interviews. There could be “main street bias”, they said, in that households on main streets were more likely to suffer casualties from car bombings. They want an inquiry into the methodology. “It’s almost a crime to let it go unchallenged,” said Neil Johnson of Oxford. ”

Now what part of ‘fundamentally flawed’ do you boys nicht verstanden?

I’m right on this and I’m right on LA County: more American deaths in LA County than American deaths in Iraq - same period of time. Better find another reason to hate Bush.

Nope. That never happened. In fact, Lancet used the exact same methodology that the United States government uses to just the death tolls of natural disasters / genocide.

So if it works there, why not here?

You never did answer when this came up: are you really happy for America to be judged as simply “not as bad as Saddam”?

And Duggs obviously never finished middle school.

Nope, I’ve demonstrated multiple times from middle of the road sources - like IBC.

I’m sorry*, but I’m going to have to question yoursources.

*Not really

You wish it weren’t so Nimmer but it is.

And you hate America.

And may I save you little work - Lancet has been discredited.

By who? Bill “pink pistols” O’Riley?

“And I have shown repeatedly here that the overall death rate for Iraqis was much higher under Saddam than afterwards.”

You’re only half right. You haven’t “shown” it at all, you’ve just repeated it like that’s all you need to do to make it true.

….This is one of the least deadly wars in history…. That kernel is surrender…. Dugger

Bush’s war on Iraq is in no way analogous to WWI or WWII. Bush attacked a country that did nothing to the US. Bush lied to the American people to make them support his war. Bush is responsible for the civil disorder, death and destruction in Iraq.

The people we are killing are Iraqis. They did nothing to provoke this war, which is illegal and immoral.

So far, Bush is responsible for the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqis; for 2,000,000 refugees who have left Iraq; and for over 1,500,000 refugees in Iraq
For only one example US shot or killed 429 Iraqi civilians in the last year
RAW STORY
Published: Thursday July 12, 2007
US soldiers in Iraq killed or wounded 429 Iraqi civilians at checkpoints or near patrols just in the last year — according to military statistics leaked to a McClatchy Newspaper reporter….

Bush has yet to announce what his exit strategy is or what constitutes ‘victory;’ but in point of fact, Iraq has its own government. If it is not an American puppet, it will be responsible for ending the civil war once the US leaves.

The people of the Middle East are being increasingly radicalized because of this policy. To continue in Iraq would be stupid policy, but that is all we’ve ever had from Bush is his little minions and his chickenhawk apologists, who have not a clue what anyone in Iraq thinks.

But “Kill everybody’?

WW1 and WW2 were very bad and they didn’t kill everybody. This is one of the least deadly wars in history. And I don’t say we shouldn’t leave Iraq, but that we should do it properly. That is also what the adults in the Democratic party will insist upon.

And I know you and others would like to experience nothing but the sugar coating of the left’s (and now maybe some on the right) ’strategic withdrawal’ position and ignore the hard kernel underneath. That kernel is surrender. The peole we are fighting and the people who are fighting for us regurad it thusly.

Funny thing about this phrase is that neither you, nor anybody in charge, has ever clearly defined what these conditions would be in anything but the vaguest terms.

“Victory,” per se.

Again, as long as you continue to call it the “surrender” position, I feel perfectly justified calling the dissenting opinion the “kill everybody” position, since it’s the same level of ridiculous.

I do not want the US to stay in Iraq. I would like every soldier and civilian out -as soon as conditions realistically permit. Its that last part that progressives can’t deal with. But mark my words, every single Democratic candidate running for Pres, with the possible exception of Lil Denny, will deal with those conditions and will base their policy on that realism. The surrender position will not make the cut.