Curious about that "30,000 Iraqis killed" figure Shrub cited today?

[librechik]

So was I. Others were too,apparently, because after the speech the WH clarified that remark, saying it wasn't an official government figure, just a number he got "from the media."

How interesting, I thought. I wonder what media source has been throwing around a civilian death figure so casually without official confirmation from the Pentagon?

I was immediately intrigued when I discovered that basically NOBODY in the media was throwing such a figure around. VERY FEW sources in the media were mentioning the 30,000 figure--in fact only one article by AP writer Jim Krane appeared in the teensy Monterey County Herald, months ago, on Oct 26, 2005. and a couple of op-ed or LTTE thingies, both by the same guy, also demanding an end to the war.
Hmmm, I thought. Our non-news-reading pResident reads the Montery County Herald? How quaint!

From the AP article:
"Boylan said the U.S. military keeps its own tally of Iraqi dead, but does not release it. He said he asked U.S. authorities to see estimates of Iraqi dead and was refused.

But he suggested an estimate from Iraq Body Count, a British anti-war group that has compiled a death toll based on media reports, appeared credible. The group estimated that from 26,690 to 30,051 Iraqi civilians were killed, or about 1,000 per month in the 30 months since the war began.

"I guess it is certainly possible given some of the spectacular events, but hard to say," Boylan said via e-mail.

Some outside experts call that number about right.

Judith Yaphe, a former CIA Iraq analyst and a senior fellow at National Defense University, said she accepts estimates of 20,000 to 30,000 killed.

Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said in a report issued Friday that the Iraq Body Count figure of about 30,000 Iraqis killed was "extremely uncertain" -- but that it did seem the best estimate available."

Aha! "extrememly uncertain," eh? Off I went to IraqBodyCount.com, the original source of the 30,000 figure, to see what the Center for Strategic and International Studies believes is the best estimate available. ;

Iraq Body Count is a nonprofit. It seems to be a sincere, academic, and straightforwardly anti-war group which has been compiling death-total figures since the war in Afghanistan. There is a "death counter" on the site which changes as fatalities are listed (use it on your own site!) IBC counts homicide deaths in street conflicts as well as combat fatalities, as it were, so they seem fair. They meticulously describe the method they use for compiling their numbers. The lowdown, if you're interested, is available in the "about us" section.

Briefly, they only use published or broadcast media reports of deaths to come up with the 27,000 to 30,000 figure they list. This is in contrast to last year's "controversial" Johns Hopkins/Lancet figure of 100,000, now almost a year behind the growing casualty count. The Hopkins/Lancet study got their figure by surveying hospitals and relief organizations.

So it kind of depends on how you compile your numbers as to how many dead Iraqis Bush would do over again, if he had the chance. And how interesting that he relies on an anti-war group for his bloody numbers.

[FreedomAngel82]

1. It was rigged

Bush doesn't do ANYTHING without it being rigged. It's purely for poll numbers and to turn the people's opinion around dealing with the war. He had that question planted so people will think the death really isn't that bad. It's really pathetic.

[Nabia2004]

2. US military casualties 49,500, Iraqi civilian dead 118,900

stats that were reported on the 12/2/05 episode of The McLaughlin Group

U.S. military dead in Iraq, including suicides, 2,125; US military amputees, wounded, injured, mentally ill, all now out of Iraq, 49,500; Iraqi civilians dead, 118,900.

Video http://www.airamericaradio-lists.com/ymjvwdf_slbcosoocl.html

Transcript http://www.airamericaradio-lists.com/mnvfsls_slbcosoocl.html

[VolcanoJen]

3. CNN: White House source on 30k number was IraqBodyCount.Net

I'm watching the repeat of Anderson Cooper, and Dana Bash just reported that a White House senior official told her that the source for Bush's speech today came from Iraqbodycount.net.

I find that to be rather fascinating, actually.

Wouldn't one think that the White House would have its own, internal sources and researchers, working together with the DoD, State, sundry humanitarian groups, what-have-you, so that they could come up with their own number of Iraqi civilians killed, and so that they could repeat said number with much confidence and bravado?

No? Me neither.

[leftchick]

4. well it sure beats the Lancet figure of over 100,000!

they had to get a tally somewhere since they don't do body counts. :(

[librechik]

8. as long as they are determined not to take responsibility

they will never acknowledge events by counting who they killed. It might look like they killed somebody.

[jbnow]

5. Even if it IS 30 thousand

That is 10 dead for every 1 on 9/11 (which we somehow tie to this war)
Considering the difference in population it would be a much bigger percentage.

So if this is a killing kind of game we won, we won.

Can we go home now?

[K-W]

6. At this point anyone who says less than 100,000 is INSANE

Even if the study in Lancet overshot when it was published (and theres no reason to think they did) by now it is pretty much impossible that this number hasnt been passed.

[philb]

7. There will be more until there is movement to get the foundation right

for a constitution and Gov't that deals fairly regarding who controls the oil
and with rights of the 3 main religious/ethnic groups there,
Shia, Sunni, and Kurds-
Who controls the oil- is still a major factor in the problems there.
Until there is a constitution and government that deals fairly with the rights and needs of
the various factions there, there can be no lasting peace. The U.S. has replaced a long time
U.S. puppet Sunni Gov't by a Shia controlled Gov't, but not because of a desire to make things
better for all, rather for oil and partisan reasons. That can't work in the long run, and
someone has to somehow get the foundation right, with a plan for fairness, stability, and peace
that can be supported by the majority of all religious and ethnic groups in Iraq.

[Toots]

9. I don't watch or listen to him but did he sound proud of the number?

Was he bragging about the US killing that many?