13 Comments »

1. Lies, prevarication, more lies, evasion and distortions of the truth. Anything to avoid responsibility. The criminality of this government is getting out of hand. They’re even playing political games with mass murder now.

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 8 Dec 2004 on 4:46 pm | Link

2. "… the PMOS said the Ministry of Health’s figures were directly from the hospitals, rather than a disputed compilation technique."

   We’ve been over this before. It’s a war. In wars, not everyone dies in a hospital. A count of people who die in hospitals will be a woeful underestimate of the total death toll.

   There have been no serious critiques of the Lancet study which give any reason to believe that its estimate is definitely too large (the paper makes clear that the estimate is not very accurate, but it as likely to be much larger than the "most likely" 98,000 deaths than much smaller, as the PMOS claims here).

   It’s not surprising that the government aren’t willing to fund research on the number of people killed by the war (though the "sovereign country" argument is obviously misleading — they funded, for instance, all sorts of "research" on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq before the war, despite its sovereign status). But it is very sad that they persist in lying about the Lancet study and its conclusions.

   Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 9 Dec 2004 on 10:11 am | Link

3. No serious critiques???

   The study is worthless. What it does provide sufficiently reliable information on, we knew already anyway. And the rest is best summarised by the word "propaganda".

   It is very bad of you to accuse the Prime Minister of "lying" without any basis whatsoever for that claim. And note carefully the difference between "lying" and disagreeing with you.

   "Lying" means not telling the truth with the intent to maliciously deceive. That excludes disagreement about what the facts are, and it also excludes putting a different interpretation on them.

   So, what does the study tell us that I believe is vaguely reliable? Violent death in the period including the invasion and its aftermath was higher than in the period immediately preceding it. But it doesn’t provide sufficiently reliable evidence to even quantify this most basic finding with any confidence.

   On general mortality, on infant mortality, on deaths in prisons and army camps, on the attribution of violent deaths, the study provides extremely unreliable evidence, but that’s more than made up for by the way it’s presented as evidence for "the coalition has killed a 100,000 innocent civilians, most of them women and children", which, yes, I think is best classified as effectively propaganda that assists the cause of terrorists and criminals.

   Nor do I even vaguely buy your argument that the Iraqi Health Ministry figures should be undercounts. Far from it, they may include a large number of insurgents, rather than civilians, and, I should say, they also include the victims of terrorist bombings.

   Direct counts can be extremely reliable, and in the case of deaths, that’s the way national figures are usually obtained. How do you think do murder statistics, or terrorism statistics get done in the UK? By surveying 10,000 people???

   Comment by Heiko Gerhauser — 16 Dec 2004 on 1:54 pm | Link

4. ‘It is very bad of you to accuse the Prime Minister of "lying" without any basis whatsoever for that claim. And note carefully the difference between "lying" and disagreeing with you.’

   Firstly, I did not accuse the Prime Minister of lying here (though I believe that he did in the House of Commons; see
   <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2004-12-08.1166.3">http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2004-12-08.1166.3</a&gt;
   for his statement and my comment).

   In any case my claim is that the Prime Minister (a) knows that there are other studies that measure the total number of deaths in the war against Iraq; (b) that those studies are more reliable than a count of deaths in hospitals; and that (c) either the Prime Minister knows this, or he has been extremely poorly briefed.

   "On general mortality, on infant mortality, on deaths in prisons and army camps, on the attribution of violent deaths, the study provides extremely unreliable evidence"

   OK. The study is not very *accurate*, but there is no reason to believe that it is *biased*.

   "… it doesn’t provide sufficiently reliable evidence to even quantify this most basic finding with any confidence."

   You know much better than this. The study explains rather well how confidently its ‘most basic finding’ is known.

   "Nor do I even vaguely buy your argument that the Iraqi Health Ministry figures should be undercounts."

   OK. You have two options: (a) no deaths in Iraq occur outside of hospitals; (b) the Iraqi Health Ministry figures are undercounts. You cannot possibly believe (a), so why say that you do?

   "Direct counts can be extremely reliable, and in the case of deaths, that’s the way national figures are usually obtained."

   Yes. But not during wars.

   Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 16 Dec 2004 on 11:06 pm | Link

5. Seems to me that Chris Lightfoot is being as partial with his interpretation of the statement as the PM is with the facts. Tut Tut.

   The PM’s quote says:
   "In our view the figures from the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which has surveyed the hospitals there, constitute the most accurate survey that there is[.]"

   The PM is crudely sidestepping the issue with a factual statement – it is the most accurate survey (it counted bodies) it was NOT an estimate. The argument that this was/is only a partial survey and omits those dead and not delivered to hospital, those uncounted and unknowns who were fried, pulverized, shredded and buried in the bombing does not make the statement in the House of Commons in any way a lie. It is hard to see how this type of approach is any more worthy than the one criticised.

   Comment by Mr Pooter — 17 Dec 2004 on 12:03 pm | Link

6. No, not really. The PM was asked,

   "Does the Prime Minister accept that, for this country to comply with its international legal obligations, we must hold a full, independent inquiry into the number of civilian casualties in Iraq since the invasion last year?"

   i.e. he was being asked about the number of people killed, not the number of bodies available for counting in hospitals. Since he didn’t qualify what the statement in his reply (e.g. "… the most accurate survey that there is, although it measures something completely different…") referred to, he obviously meant us to understand it as a statement about research into the total number of deaths (i.e. what he was asked about).

   Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 17 Dec 2004 on 12:55 pm | Link

7. Since when has not answering the question or answering a different but related question been the same as telling a lie?

   In your latest quote, he’s asked if he thinks we have to hold an enquiry. He is NOT asked how many people have been killed. He simply avoids the question by referring to old and partial data. Hardly an original technique. To expect him to put in the quantifier you suggest and draw attention to the fact that he has evaded the question strikes me as being a little naive.

   The fact that he gets away with avoiding such questions is down to the poor quality of the questions and the restrictions stopping them nailing him down with the three or four follow-ups required. Such a practice might make us all scream at the radio and hurl bricks at the TV in frustration but it does not amount to lieing.

   Comment by Mr Pooter — 17 Dec 2004 on 4:18 pm | Link

8. There’s only so much you can say in a question – and as we repeatedly saw over intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq, Michael Howard repeatedly asked TB the same question with only a yes or no possible for a reply – so there was no reply. Well, not as such – of course he waffled on about other stuff, but no answer to a simple yes or no.

   At the end of the day it doesn’t matter what the wording of the question is – if he doesn’t want to answer for whatever reason, he just won’t.

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 17 Dec 2004 on 4:26 pm | Link

9. Papa – I agree it cannot be easy but it is their trade. Part of the problem is that journalists are terrified of being blacklisted, ignored, avoided and not invited back. With no access they are useless to their employers and their productivity falls off into comment on comment. So a lot of them are frightened of pushing it to the limit and are almost apologetic when they ask difficult questions. This parasitic relationship benefits everyone apart from the voter.

   In the Times today, Stephen Pollard has written a piece which illustrates the conundrum brilliantly. "I did not want to be the biographer who forced his subject out of office." He says in the piece: ".. so open mouthed was I at his (Blunkett’s) frankness, that I reminded him as he spoke to me that the tape recorder was on." One might praise such integrity from a biographer but one hopes for more of a bloodlust approach from a political journalist.

   Comment by Mr Pooter — 17 Dec 2004 on 5:06 pm | Link

10. "He is NOT asked how many people have been killed. He simply avoids the question by referring to old and partial data."

    But the statement that he makes about that old and partial data is dishonest. He is claiming that the old and partial data is a more accurate survey than more recent surveys. It isn’t and he knows it.

    Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 17 Dec 2004 on 8:36 pm | Link

11. Really? Where does he say that it IS more accurate?

    The PM’s quote says:
    "In our view the figures from the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which has surveyed the hospitals there, constitute the most accurate survey that there is[.]"

    He says in OUR VIEW it is, not that it actually is. Quite different. He doesn’t lie. He’s just mastered the art of political answers. If he was to split hairs he might even claim the 100,000 figure wasn’t a survey in any event, it was an estimate. What you imagine he knows and what you claim he knows is so much trash – he does not lie whichever way you read it

    Boring. I think I smell coffee….

    Comment by Mr Pooter — 17 Dec 2004 on 10:20 pm | Link

12. Hi Chris,

    the count of the Iraqi Health Ministry measures civilian casualties. The Lancet survey measures excess death.

    In terms of civilians killed by coalition forces, the health ministry count may represent an overcount, based on the facts that it includes terrorist bombings and that "insurgents" would be counted as civilians.

    A direct count is the most accurate measure, as long as it can be reasonably assumed that most victims would make it to hospitals or morgues. In Northern Ireland that was clearly the case, and that’s a situation I would describe as somewhat comparable, in so far as the "war" involved there was of a similar nature (bombings and small arms fire, overall control of the territory by the government). Only Fallujah represents an exception, as it was not under government control for a few months.

    I should repeat, the Lancet study figure of 100,000 does not represent an estimate of civilians killed by coalition forces. It is an estimate of excess mortality, ie an attempt to compare mortality rates just before the invasion with the period including the invasion and up to September 2004.

    To calculate excess mortality, one needs estimates of death rates before and after. The Lancet study estimates something like 5 per 1000 before and 7.5 per 1000 after.

    Now, one multiplies the difference, 2.5 per thousand by 25 million and 1.5 years and gets, just under 100,000.

    The potential for error here is illustrated by the fact that WHO estimates mortality in 2002 to be 8 per 1000. And there are various reasons that could potentially explain, why the Lancet study’s numbers differ. For example, the Lancet did not survey the prison population, and from other similar studies we know that there may be recall bias for infant deaths, with deaths occurring further in the past less likely to be reported.

    Mortality can be subdivided into violent death, and other death (accidents, heart attacks, infant mortality etc.). For other death, there is not sufficient data available to argue for either a strong increase or a strong decrease, and the Lancet study doesn’t change that.

    For violent death, we already knew before the publication of the Lancet study that there had been, in all likelihood, an increase of several ten thousand. Firstly, because the period before the invasion was fairly quiet in terms of killings (though not in terms of other human rights violations), and secondly because of all the statistics on murder, terrorist bombings and combatants killed revealed by the Iraqi government and coalition forces.

    This is not contradicted by the data presented in the Lancet study.

    For a count of civilians killed by the coalition, the data of the Lancet study are very poor. Ex Fallujah, three coalition bombings and three coalition shootings are reported. All three shot were men, one possibly a combatant, the other two reportedly innocent civilians. In the three bombings six people are reported to have died, one possibly a male combatant, and the other 5 being women and children.

    Those reports are a very poor basis for extrapolating to the rest of the country. We are talking about three reported bombing events. If even one of them was based on either a lie, or a misperception of the guilty party, the figures would change radically.

    Or in other words, the sample is far too small for the purpose of divining civilian casualties of coalition bombings and small arms fire with any accuracy.

    So, in conclusion, I have to disagree strongly with Chris. For civilian casualties of bombings and combatant small arms fire, the Iraqi Health Ministry statistics are by far and away the most accurate and trustworthy numbers we’ve got.

    And for more accurate overall mortality figures we’ll have to await better surveys. Those, I might remark, could easily show excess mortality of minus half a million over a 10 year period, once we are in the year 2013, and if things go well.

    Comment by Heiko Gerhauser — 20 Dec 2004 on 4:27 pm | Link

13. Liars

    you lied in word, in deed, & by omission:
    you blamed Saddam for things that you had done
    & failed to do – the Shia insurrection,
    incited, left to founder – sorry son!
    with VX, sarin, stuff for nuclear fission –
    you armed him, supplied anthrax by the ton,
    you egged him on to fight Iran, then ditched him…
    & now you cannot find the smoking gun?
    too long past their use-by-date. oh? fine!
    (don\x92t bother to say sorry: just resign.)

    you lied about \x93eviction\x94 of inspectors
    whom the UN \x93withdrew\x94 – you wanna bet?
    phials, anti-poison-gas injectors,
    antidotes to dangers to be met,
    & posters: how to cope with radiation
    were hailed as \x93proof of clear & present threat.\x94
    duty-bound to free a captive nation?
    ever think of rescuing Tibet?
    oh. it\x92s unfair to hold you to that line…
    don\x92t bother to say sorry: just resign.

    there\x92s some bad bastards, but it\x92s no use fretting –
    ex-Soviets Belarus & Kazakhstan.
    our hatred of dictators could not threaten
    Suharto, Burma, Saudi, Pakistan.
    adjust the odds, it makes for safer betting;
    where standards are too high, let down the bar.
    for Chile we strained the rules, left Pinochet in;
    Somoza, Marcos, Franco, Salazar,
    we backed; who claimed their right to rule divine,
    & never did say sorry, nor resign.

    Afghanistan: \x93we\x92ll never walk away!\x94
    you left them unexploded cluster bombs
    like food parcels – they go off every day! –
    to add to 20 million Russian mines.
    & all the billions that you said you\x92d pay
    keeps war lords ruling as in former times.
    the bulk of it is mis-spent, gone astray,
    they don\x92t add up, the economic sums.
    damage limitation? not this time.
    don\x92t bother to say sorry: just resign.

    you lied about the poison factories;
    lied about their nuclear capacity;
    on links to Al Qaida came a freeze –
    Bush yes, Blair no (gulp gulp); it took audacity…
    45 minute standby – there\x92s a wheeze –
    imminent threat! in coping with this facet we
    might have bypassed other forgeries –
    uranium from Niger? sheer mendacity!
    you\x92ve been found out, you\x92ve overstayed your time,
    so do what Denis Healy said: resign

    you lied. you said it wasn\x92t about oil.
    you bellowed this until your face turned blue.
    & yet, available to any literate child:
    what Goldstein said to Bush\x92s cronies whom,
    cringe-making, blatant, we will not imbroil
    after the war the inverse will be true.
    I quote the Wall Street Journal – your blood boil?
    mine does. we all could read it! so could you.
    maybe you did; it chanced to slip your mind?
    don\x92t even promise. do it now. resign.

    Comment by Sydney Bernard Smith — 20 Mar 2005 on 7:55 am | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.