*But what evidence we have tells us these pre-war death rates were actually much higher. Dated United Nations figures suggest the overall death rate was well over seven in every 1000 – or close to, if not higher than, the present rate of 7.9 in every 1000 that the Lancet survey suggests. But even more persuasive are 2002 figures from UNICEF, which in a much bigger survey of 24,000 households found the infant mortality rate in Iraq before the war was actually a tragic 108 deaths per 1000 infants.*

Whether we accept the Lancet figure of 100,000 or not (I do not, by the way) this piece hardly 'rips the analytical foundations' of the claim when its author produces a range almost as wide as the originators of the Lancet piece itself. 7.9 deaths per 1000 or 108 deaths per thousand ?
The words pot, kettle and black come to mind.

Bolt does not know what he is talking about. I discuss his column here.

mike I think the 7.9 deaths per 1000 is referring to the population as a whole, the 108 per thousand to infants. Perhaps you should read it again?

Yes you are correct Alex. My mistake ! 8(

The trouble is, these figures are now taken as gospel truth by nearly everyone in the media, particularly the BBC (no suprise there.)

Just watch Question Time. You are guaranteed at least one person per week will end a sentence with "...and as a result 100,000 Iraqis are dead!" to rupturous applause.

I hate to intrude on this nice little echo-chamber you've got going here, but have any of you actually bothered to read Tim Lambert's post? I suggest you do, as it quite comprehensively shows that Andrew Bolt's 'critique' of the Lancet study is, er, baseless. Tim concludes:

"Too many war supporters have a desperate need to deny that the Iraq war has had some bad consequences. This desperation means that even clueless critiques, such as Bolt’s will find credulous believers."

To the list of credulous believers we can now add Stephen Pollard, who should be ashamed of himself for so eagerly latching onto anything that confirms his pre-existing 'suspicion' of the Lancet study, no matter how ill-informed and incompetent. If he so eagerly allows political bias to colour his views in his so-called 'professional field', then his credibility on subjects he knows much less about (i.e. everything else) must be heading towards zero. Might I suggest that he actually *read* the Lancet study for himself before dismissing it?

'via Melanie Philips' these words are like a hallmark of error. Wise up.

seherscuirt asian female ejaculation x@x seehersquirts squirts hard x@x seeherscuirting deep squirter x@x tuggjob duble load x@x tuggjabs nineteens dvd x@x togjobs cam x@x rozbieranie ostre kicie seks x@x rozkladanie nog ostre kicie seks x@x rozlozone nogi ostre kicie seks x@x pikantne panny minety akty x@x mokre panny minety akty x@x latwe panny minety akty x@x niesamowite dziewczyny wlochate porno x@x mokre niunie wlochate porno x@x spragnione niunie wlochate porno x@x seks majtki akty x@x porno majtki akty x@x erotyka majtki akty x@x seks majtki akty x@x porno majtki akty x@x erotyka majtki akty x@x

jpb ppyt psycholog zdrowa żywność nieruchomości projektowanie stron agencja reklamowa soczewki kontaktowe nauka angielskiego agroturystyka opony klimatyzacja domy opieki akupunktura hydraulik projektowanie wnętrz soha jpk paa ki wypadki tfrd jh sw jft pp fdr

videos asstrafic* violated anally xxx* clip moms video* clip old pussy* big roundass* big roundasse* allinternal login* allinternal lora* assparade fire* pornstar dasani* martina cocks* mass gangbang*