MSM Gives Bush a Pass On His Denial of 655,000 Killed in Iraq

Bush's blithe dismissal of the Lancet report of 655,000 Iraqi deaths has succeeded so far, thanks to the MSM. The President of the United States engaged in what can only be regarded as akin to Holocaust Denial right there on TV, and the MSM did nothing about it. What good are the resources of the MSM (fact checkers, reporters, scientific sources, lawyers) if they are left unused? If the MSM wants to know why they are headed for the round file of history, they have only to look at this case.

It is amazing to me how quickly the Lancet article (PDF)and Bush's unsubstantiated dismissal of it has disappeared from the MSM. Muslims must find it outrageous. Everyone should, especially people whose ethnic groups have been the victims of genocide.



Isn't this denial by Bush without any substantiation a moral and a scientific matter of the first order? Why doesn't Casey consider the report credible? Who were the Iraqi officials who don't find the report credible? How is the methodology "pretty well discredited?"

MSM, where are you?

How can the world hold Holocaust deniers accountable if the President of the United States can just wave his hand and dismiss a peer reviewed article on a subject so vitally important. Clearly it is in Bush's best interest to deny that 655,000 Iraqis have died in his war. Is it in the best interest of the world to let him get away with it? What precedent does this set for the future? What message does it convey to Muslims?

What does it say about the MSM?

On one side is scientist George W. Bush saying "The methodology is pretty well discredited." On the other side is the Lancet, one of the leading medical journals in Europe publishing a peer-reviewed study. To the MSM, that's a "controversy." No questions to ask here. Move along.

Holocaust deniers and the folks who try and deny that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, woman and children have been killed due to Bush's invasion and occupation are one in the same.

Sickos!

Don

The feces-hurling chimp declares his opinion on a sientific study and the media said, "Oh, OKey-Dokey, then."

It really is unbelievable when you think about it for more than 1 second.

:hide:

the genocide of Iraqis is the worst of the crimes. Here is the transcript of the Kucinich/Paul hearings on the Lancet study, with the authors and Juan Cole....

http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/kucinich-paul-congressional-hearing-on.html


Kucinich-Paul Congressional Hearing on Civilian Casualties in Iraq

Here is the transcript of Monday's hearing on Capitol Hill on the Lancet study, at which I spoke along with two co-authors of the study. The video can be seen at the C-Span archive page (scroll down to the bottom). Thanks to Representatives Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul for the kind invitation to speak at the hearing..

December 11, 2006 Monday

NEWS CONFERENCE WITH REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH) AND REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL (R-TX); TOPIC: CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN IRAQ OTHER; PARTICIPANTS: DR. GILBERT BURNHAM, M.D., CO-DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR REFUGEE AND DISASTER RESPONSE, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY JUAN COLE, PROFESSOR OF MODERN MIDDLE EAST HISTORY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LES ROBERTS, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, CLINICAL PUBLIC HEALTH, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY; LOCATION: 2247 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

REP. KUCINICH: (Without microphone.) Okay. Thank you very much for being here this morning for this congressional oversight briefing on Iraq, in particular -- we'll start over. Thank you. Thank you very much for being here this morning for this congressional oversight briefing on Iraq -- in particular, the impact of 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. And we're going to do an overview of the Lancet mortality study in Iraq.

I want to begin by thanking Congressman Ron Paul for being willing to cosponsor this briefing. Mr. Paul and I have worked very closely together on a wide range of issues relating to the conduct of war in Iraq and now to the issue that relates to the civilian casualties. Ron Paul has been an essential part of a bipartisan coalition that aimed at bringing our troops home as quickly as possible. So I want to publicly express my appreciation for the partnership with Mr. Paul, and I look forward to continuing to work with him in the next Congress.

Today we have a number of authors who have been active on this issue of the civilian casualties and who are going to be making presentations with respect to their own studies. I want to briefly make the introductions. I'll then make a statement. And then we will proceed to their statements, and then we're going to have a discussion among all the panelists, with me leading the way with questions.

January? I honestly can't remember, but thought there might've been some mention of it.

Kerry mentioned the Johns Hopkins study back in Oct at a speech in Manchester:

They tell us the Johns Hopkins study on Iraqi casualties is phony. That is a lie. And we can see the truth on our television sets every single day.

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/speech.html?id=17

so, is that Lancet study this one: http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html

by removing the MSM from their office of power rather than the turd in the White House.

The sheer amount of propaganda coming from these corporate brainwashers has exposed them as naked propagandists, but we all stare at each other waiting for the other person to do something.

Torches and pitchforks, people. There are real lives at stake.

Even today, when Smirk's stock is falling, the media still pulls its punches and puts the best possible light on things for Bush. Problem is, the best possible light that can be put on Iraq is still too dark to let people know the truth about it.

against humanity. What a fucking snow/spin job they tried to do against the study.

It says they are as healthy as the river in Ohio that caught fire a few years back, the river was mainstream as well.

As he directed the cause of death for thousands. And our Cuckoo Cowboy is immune.

:crazy::crazy::crazy:

Has anyone given any evidence that it is incorrect, or that another figure is more accurate? I thought I had heard at one point some general saying that they don't keep track of Iraqi deaths. If that's so, then how would Bush know that 650,000 deaths was an incorrect number? Just because it's so large that it's hard to believe? Have there been ANY other studies as to the number of Iraqi deaths?

Johns Hopkins and MIT are hardly hack institutions, and the Lancet is a highly regarded medical journal. I don't think this report would have gone too far if it wasn't at least somewhat credible.

"Well, seem the methodology, and by that I mean the methods that were used, have been discredited, and by that I mean they don't have any credit, see? I don't appreciate that sort of gotcha question, by the way. I won't be calling on you again."

-It is in fact a widely accepted methodology

-The Burnet Institute and International Rescue Committee (IRC) used the same methods to estimate mortality in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The findings of this study received widespread media attention and were accepted without reservation by the US and British governments.

-The Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health's Centre for International Health endorses this study.

-Both this and the earlier study are the only ones to estimate mortality in Iraq using scientific methods. The technique, called "cluster sampling," is used to estimate mortality in famines and after natural disasters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

"If the administration believes the Hopkins' study to be flawed, the federal government should fund its own study of Iraqi mortality, and submit the methodology and results to a medical journal subject to independent peer review. After all the Hopkins' study was funded in large part by a $50,000 grant from MIT; surely the federal government could afford such a study."

Walk your bullshit talk, bush.

To assume that a fugging dunce like Bush has more credibility than experts only exposes MSM as hacks. That MSM does not haev the guts to bring these experts on programs is all the proof I need that they are complicit in the cover-up. CSpan was the only program to give this subject extensive coverage thanks to Dennis Kucinich. Fuck MSM and fuck Bush.

To be ignored at will, like most inconvenient little wrinkles of reality - global warming, acid rain, the utter ineffectiveness of abstinence-based sex "education".

Just say it isn't so, and voila! It isn't - and Chris Matthews/Fred Barnes/Tony Blankley will back you up on it.

:eyes: