Sources for the daily posting of Iraqi civilian deaths are well-documented on the antiwar.com site. They share your [very justified] hatred of war, and I don’t doubt their “zilch evidence” figures… which contrast greatly with the “survey” sponsored by MIT. They certainly don’t deflate the figures, and would certainly list larger casualty numbers if possible (to further justify their position/goal), but display integrity by using only verifiable sources for their data.

I happen to generally agree with most of their stances and goals, and wish them success in their efforts. The most glaring difference with their apparent goals and those of the far left: They are anti-war, working with factual information; the extremist left – today’s Democrat Party – is simply anti-administration, working with vague, general accusations and frequent falsehoods to create an environment of hatred.

The “far left” has overplayed their hand, as always, and I don’t think they even realize they are “shooting themselves in the foot,” destroying their chances of winning the hearts and minds of voters who don’t identify with simplistic hatred in the political arena. They are unwilling to submit an agenda, and the only thing they rely on to meet their only goal (winning) is “bad news.” There is plenty of factual data, if combined with a well-defined plan, to move voters – but they prefer inflated data, an all-negative approach, putdown of the voters they need, discouraging conservative voters, etc. Among other things, I question their intellectual capacity if they expect to win with that methodology.

What evidence do you have that suggests otherwise? None. Zilch.

Just spew forth anything. For crying out loud now you’re siding with anti-war.com because you think it suits your beliefs! Incredible!

Thanks for showing us just how desperate you, and your party, have become.

And thanks for confirming my first post on this thread, too.

Which is fine; to each his own. I’m not interested in engaging you on the subject. But I think the available information makes the study’s results sound much more credible than you believe them to be. They specifically describe having used appropriate sampling. And I’m personally aware of a number of widely-reported incidents involving hundreds of deaths in a single incident — that stampede on the bridge last year (I believe?) involved something like 1,000 violent deaths in one incident. If you don’t remember that, I’d say it’s an indication that your personal recollection provides an insufficient basis for you to evaluate the credibility of the study’s findings.

I don’t have to wonder whether the polling included representative samples throughout the country. Polling was done in the most violent areas, then the figures from those neighborhoods were manipulated to reflect casualties country-wide. It’s no different than the methods practiced by pollsters in the U.S., and they will not disappoint their financing client.