TRUMP says Bush is the BIGGEST LIAR EVER!

and then there is this by john hopkins university and MIT....

who do you believe?

Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths
Story Highlights• NEW: President Bush says he does not consider report credible
• Gunfire found to be most common killer of Iraqis; car bombings on the rise
• Study says 2.5 percent of population killed since war; death toll rising each year
• Coalition forces blamed for 31 percent of deaths since 2003 invasion


BALTIMORE, Maryland (CNN) -- War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis or more than 500 people a day since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports.

Violence including gunfire and bombs caused the majority of deaths but thousands of people died from worsening health and environmental conditions directly related to the conflict that began in 2003, U.S. and Iraqi public health researchers said.

"Since March 2003, an additional 2.5 percent of Iraq's population have died above what would have occurred without conflict," according to the survey of Iraqi households, titled "The Human Cost of the War in Iraq." (Watch as the study's startling results are revealed -- 1:55)

The survey, being published online by British medical journal The Lancet, gives a far higher number of deaths in Iraq than other organizations. (Read the full report -- pdf)

The report's release came as nearly four dozen Baghdad civilians became casualties in another day of bombs and gunfire. (Full story)

President Bush slammed the report Wednesday during a news conference in the White House Rose Garden. "I don't consider it a credible report. Neither does Gen. (George) Casey," he said, referring to the top ranking U.S. military official in Iraq, "and neither do Iraqi officials."

"The methodology is pretty well discredited," he added. (Watch Bush dismiss the report -- 1:33)

Ali Dabbagh, an Iraqi government spokesman, said in a statement that the report "gives exaggerated figures that contradict the simplest rules of accuracy and investigation."

Last December, Bush said that he estimated about 30,000 people had died since the war began.

When pressed whether he stood by that figure Wednesday, he said, "I stand by the figure a lot of innocent people have lost their life. Six hundred thousand -- whatever they guessed at -- is just not credible."

Researchers randomly selected 1,849 households across Iraq and asked questions about births and deaths and migration for the study led by Gilbert Burnham of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. The Center for International Studies at Massachusetts Institute of Technology cooperated.

They extrapolated the figures to reflect the national picture, saying Iraq's death rate had more than doubled since the invasion.

On Wednesday, Burnham defended his team's methodology, saying it was the standard used in developing countries to survey for HIV and other major health issues he said. In 87 of the interviews conducted, the researchers asked for death certificates, and people were able to produce one 92 percent of the time, he said.

In 13 percent of the interviews, the researchers had forgotten to ask for certificates, he said. (Watch Military and civilian experts question the methodology -- 1:45)

The report said thatIraqis "bear the consequence of warfare" andcompared the situation with other wars: "In the Vietnam War, 3 million civilians died; in the Congo, armed conflict has been responsible for 3.8 million deaths; in East Timor, an estimated 200,000 out of a population of 800,000 died in conflict.

"Recent estimates are that 200,000 have died in Darfur [Sudan] over the past 31 months. Our data, which estimate that 654,965 or 2.5 percent of the Iraqi population has died in this, the largest major international conflict of the 21st century, should be of grave concern to everyone."

The researchers estimated that an additional 654,965 people have died in Iraq since the invasion above what would have been expected from the pre-war mortality rate. They did not ask families whether their dead were civilians or fighters. (Read the report's appendix, including methodology and charts -- pdf)

Violence claimed about 601,000 people, the survey estimated -- the majority killed by gunfire, "though deaths from car bombing have increased from 2005," the study says.

The additional 53,000 people who are believed to have been killed by the effects of the war mostly died in recent months, "suggesting a worsening of health status and access to health care," the study said. It noted, however, that the number of nonviolent deaths "is too small to reach definitive conclusions."

Other key points in the survey:


The number of people dying in Iraq has risen each year since March 2003.

Those killed are predominantly males aged 15-44.

Deaths attributed to coalition forces accounted for 31 percent of the dead.

Although the "proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006 ... the actual numbers have increased each year."
Burnham said the confidence interval of the data put the range of the number of deaths between 400,000 and 900,000. He suggested the media should not get too focused on the 655,000 number.

Professionals familiar with such research told CNN that the survey's methodology is sound.

It has been very difficult to pin down fatality numbers during the Iraq conflict.

The private British-based Iraq Body Count research group puts the number of civilian deaths at between 43,850 and 48,693. Those figures are based on online media counts and eyewitness accounts.

"The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks)," the group's Web site says. "It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion."

The latest estimates were released less than a month ahead of U.S. midterm elections that could change the balance of power in the House and Senate, now controlled by Republicans.

CNN's Jomana Karadsheh contributed to this report

Links referenced within this article

Watch as the study's startling results are revealed -- 1:55
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/play
Read the full report -- pdf
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/10/11/human.cost.of.war.pdf
Full story
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.main/index.html/
Watch Bush dismiss the report -- 1:33
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/play
Watch Military and civilian experts question the methodology -- 1:45
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/play
Read the report's appendix, including methodology and charts -- pdf
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/10/11/appendices.human.cost.of.war.pdf

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths

© 2007 Cable News Network.
Click to expand...
 
I responeded to the first post. I believed that I said although I agreed with Trump I did not listen to the jerk.

I figure that somewhere around 400,000 have died in Iraq due to Bush's lies and subsequent blunders. Our troops were under orders to not keep a body count on the Iraqi's killed. One has to wonder why...
 
I agree Trump is a cartoon cheractor, its his stick. I still agre withwhat he says.

Many idiotic Americans idolize Trump.

Funny point, I read where Trump currently has less $ than he inherated, so he is a good business man, how?
 
I'm no fan of Trump, especially after his girlish behaviour with Rosie O'donnell lately, but I do agree with this statement:

"He also said the best course of action in Iraq is to "declare victory and leave.""
 
LadyT said:
I'm no fan of Trump, especially after his girlish behaviour with Rosie O'donnell lately, but I do agree with this statement:

"He also said the best course of action in Iraq is to "declare victory and leave.""
Click to expand...

Do you wonder why he said that Tiana? War is good for business, a lot of people are making good money from this war. You have to kind of assume, Trump, in some manner, is one of them. Whether it be through investments, whatever.

I can't stand the guy.

But is it possible that this person I have no respect for, who is rich and who is never going to be personally adversely affected by this war, actually cares more about the troops dying in it, than our President and all his men do?
 
Darla said:
Do you wonder why he said that Tiana? War is good for business, a lot of people are making good money from this war. You have to kind of assume, Trump, in some manner, is one of them. Whether it be through investments, whatever.

I can't stand the guy.

But is it possible that this person I have no respect for, who is rich and who is never going to be personally adversely affected by this war, actually cares more about the troops dying in it, than our President and all his men do?
Click to expand...

I see two things going on here and neither have to do with his love for people he doesn't know.
1) Trump is a business man who looks at results - period. When asked about the president's job performance, I don't think any CEO with a shred of self-respect could argue that he is doing a good job. Combine that with the fact that he loves the controversial limelight and loves to be known as a straight shooter, its only fitting that he would trash (AND RIGHTFULLY SO) Chimp. He loves the attention.

2) I do recall in another interview a few years back (before it was cool to denounce Chimp) that he said had he been president, he would have had Bin Laden and the troops would have been back home. Having seen Bush in office he (like many of us) is probably thinking "Hey, even I can do a better job than that". I think he has political aspirations.
 
LadyT said:
I see two things going on here and neither have to do with his love for people he doesn't know.
1) Trump is a business man who looks at results - period. When asked about the president's job performance, I don't think any CEO with a shred of self-respect could argue that he is doing a good job. Combine that with the fact that he loves the controversial limelight and loves to be known as a straight shooter, its only fitting that he would trash (AND RIGHTFULLY SO) Chimp. He loves the attention.

2) I do recall in another interview a few years back (before it was cool to denounce Chimp) that he said had he been president, he would have had Bin Laden and the troops would have been back home. Having seen Bush in office he (like many of us) is probably thinking "Hey, even I can do a better job than that". I think he has political aspirations.
Click to expand...

Ah. You're probably right. That fits in with his overall personality far more than my theory.
 
Care4all said:
i'll ask again...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you think 400,000 Iraqi have been killed? ib1 said that some estimate 625,000 have been killed...?

yes or no?
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't think we'll ever be able to sort out exactly how many Iraqi civilians have been killed directly by our military and how many have died from other causes, like insurgent action. I also don't think the question is relevant. Who cares? However many it is, it's too many.

The fact of the matter is that the overall civilian death rate in Baghdad and most other cities of Iraq has risen since the invasion. If we talk only about death by violence then the rise is even more dramatic. In Baghdad itself, the city morgue reports nearly 100 deaths by violence per day. That's far more than during the reign of Saddam Hussein. And each one of those is at least in part our fault, directly or indirectly.

We took it upon ourselves to overthrow the Iraqi government without any legitimate support within Iraq itself. Since no Iraqi opposition movement was ready to fill the power vacuum left by our hit, anarchy naturally ensued.
 
Care4all said:
i'll ask again...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you think 400,000 Iraqi have been killed? ib1 said that some estimate 625,000 have been killed...?

yes or no?
Click to expand...
And I will state again, I already answered it above.

But how I feel about Trump's opinion has little to do with how I feel about the war.
 
Damocles said:
And I will state again, I already answered it above.

But how I feel about Trump's opinion has little to do with how I feel about the war.
Click to expand...

how about a ''post number'' damo, then maybe i can find this ''answer'' of yours regarding the 400-650,000 estimated deaths.... i must be wearing my blonde wig, cuz i can't seem to find it. ;)

care
 
Care4all said:
how about a ''post number'' damo, then maybe i can find this ''answer'' of yours regarding the 400-650,000 estimated deaths.... i must be wearing my blonde wig, cuz i can't seem to find it. ;)

care
Click to expand...
Well. I stated, that I am with the Dalai Lama, that this war can no longer be thought of as a moral action... and that I had been against this war from the beginning and had argued that point ad infinitum.... But you refuse to actually read the post because it ended with a poor opinion of Trump who I think of as a caricature of a human being, concerned with an "image" rather than humanity.

But heck, that doesn't change my opinion of Trump. You were the one who posted this guy's opinion as if it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and I will state again:

Even if I agree with whatever he might be spouting, it changes not the fact that I think of Trump as white trash with money, more concerned with an inane image of "fame" than with humanity. I fully believe that if the war was more popular, even in the exact same circumstances, Trump would be jumping on that bandwagon to protect his "fame".
 
Damocles said:
Even if I agree with whatever he might be spouting, it changes not the fact that I think of Trump as white trash with money, more concerned with an inane image of "fame" than with humanity. I fully believe that if the war was more popular, even in the exact same circumstances, Trump would be jumping on that bandwagon to protect his "fame".
Click to expand...

I agree with you on Trump being trash with money. But I don't think he'd necessarily change his opinion to suit what's popular. He's been outspoken about the job Bush has been doing for a long time. I'll give him that.
 
Damocles said:
Well. I stated, that I am with the Dalai Lama, that this war can no longer be thought of as a moral action... and that I had been against this war from the beginning and had argued that point ad infinitum.... But you refuse to actually read the post because it ended with a poor opinion of Trump who I think of as a caricature of a human being, concerned with an "image" rather than humanity.

But heck, that doesn't change my opinion of Trump. You were the one who posted this guy's opinion as if it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and I will state again:
Even if I agree with whatever he might be spouting, it changes not the fact that I think of Trump as white trash with money, more concerned with an inane image of "fame" than with humanity. I fully believe that if the war was more popular, even in the exact same circumstances, Trump would be jumping on that bandwagon to protect his "fame".
Click to expand...


DING DING DING DING DING BULLSHIT meter is absolutely going off like mad, AGAIN....I GAVE NO SUCH OPINION....

you really need to get some sleep or take some reading comprehension courses...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! gees louise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And once again, HOW DID YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION:

Do you think that there have been 400,000-650,000 Iraqis killed in this war?

why are you avoiding this and giving me some run around about the Dalai Lama?

and if you did specifically answer this question about how many Iraqis have been killed, can you please give me the post number so I can find it...

thanks,

care
 
Care4all said:
DING DING DING DING DING BULLSHIT meter is absolutely going off like mad, AGAIN....I GAVE NO SUCH OPINION....

you really need to get some sleep or take some reading comprehension courses...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! gees louise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And once again, HOW DID YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION:

Do you think that there have been 400,000-650,000 Iraqis killed in this war?

why are you avoiding this and giving me some run around about the Dalai Lama?

and if you did specifically answer this question about how many Iraqis have been killed, can you please give me the post number so I can find it...

thanks,

care
Click to expand...
Posting it at all brings up discussion of Trump and people's thoughts of him. You thought it important enough to post. Once again exaggeration makes Care think this is more than a place to hold a conversation.

So, your BS meter is sadly off-kilter.

You:

1. Thought it important enough to post it.
2. Thought we would think enough of Trump to care what his opinion is.
3. Thought that you could erase the embarassment of the whole Trump issue by stating you gave no opinion on it.
4. Thought that you chould change the focus from the focus of the post, which according to the title was that TRUMP stated this.
5. Thought that enough people would think well of Trump to care of his opinion....

So, my BS meter was set off by this post there, Care.
 
I am glad she posted this, I find it interesting that Trump, who I belive is loved by many conservatives, has this opinion of Bush!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top