Which UN figures show 600,000 Iraqi deaths?

Peter From Maidstone

Well why don't you ring him up and ask him, and then ring some of the major papers and get them to investigate it as well. Not picking on Korski but why is it that things get raised in the Spectator but they never push anything to actually get it attention in the major media.

Marbury

It's good to hear a voice from the reality-based community on this blog. David Blackburn thought Marr was "at his incisive best", rather than lazily retailing the same old canards. In this case it wasn't Campbell that was spinning.

David Blackburn

Marbury,

Marr was at his best - Campbell was on the rack prior to having answer for the casualty figures, which I readily admit are false - I would, I'm with Blair and Campbell on the grand theme that ridding Iraq of Saddam was just.

On a separate note, is it not a little rich for Campbell and his apologists to quibble about exaggerating evidence?

emil

maybe they sent the figure of 100,000 to climate scientists by mistake and 600,000 was the answer.

TrevorsDen

Korski is correct. The independent (well left wing anti war, actua;lly) iraq Body Count puts the deaths at 100,000.
This is bad enough, so it beats me my peoplem have to lie about it.

And Mr Blackburn, its not Campbell complaining - its me. And its something called 'the truth' that I am after, if you do not like that then you should not be a journalist.

The Lancet study was just as accurate as its study into MMR jabs and was based on a totally unscientific opinion poll of about 1000.

Maybe Marr went to the same people who publish global warming statistics. But either way he is grossly misinformed.

Chuck Unsworth

Well he probably got the story from a journalist. Jackie or Alice, I suspect.

AntiEverything

Not defending Marr per se however

If you don't believe the Lancet study then you are saying that the numbers dead in the number of dead widely reported in Sudan are also incorrect. Or are the figures based on a widely accepted methodology rather than merely deaths reported in the media wrong for both?

The Iraqi body count figures were initially dismissed by the war criminal Bush and his cronies and yet as the bodies piled up and other methodologies indicated massive loss of life all of a sudden the IBC was accepted.

Finally if it means we witness Alistair "king of spin" Campbell having a panic attack live on air who the xxxx cares?

Bruce T

IBC require two reported accounts of a death before they count it. This is almost impossible in the chaos in Iraq now and then. Hence their figures are inevitably under-estimated. To be fair to them, they admit this. Marr is closer to the mark than any of them.

YA

"..as a result of the invasion"

Oops, here we are, again.

For those who are in the bunker:

LIBERATION.
They were LIBERATED.
Responsible freaking adults.

And then they started killing each other in dozens of thousands, and continue until now.

To blame somebody in the UK for this, is so cleary idiotic.

Dennis Sewell

Surely, if the context is a discussion over the legality of the Iraq invasion without a second UN resolution, we should all be distinguishing between deaths occurring during the invasion phase ( March/April 2003) and those occurring after UN Security Council Resolution 1483 (May 2003)?

Somewhere around 16,000 deaths are attributable to the invasion itself. The rest happened under a perfectly legal occupation/peacekeeping operation endorsed by a UN resolution.

It seems to me that those who set great store by the lack of a specific resolution approving the invasion are trying to have it both ways when they ignore 1483.

hippiepooter

www.hurryupharry.org did a great take down on the Lancet figures.

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2006/10/11/the-lancet-report/

So Andrew Marr said something about Iraq that was untrue. Are we to conclude he misled his viewers to 'settle scores'? I think there should be an inquiry.

By the way, one of the authors of these hugely inflated figures in the Lancet report is a

Chris lancashire

Does it really matter whether it's 100,000 or 600,000? Whatever the true figure the loss of life was horrendous. Your analytical skills would be better used weighing up, if you haven't already decided, whether this was a just war.

For me, at the time, I was persuaded by Blair, Campbell and the rest it was. Now I believe it wasn't.

And every interview I've heard recently with Iraqi citizens say that life under Saddam was a hell of a lot preferable to what they have today.

Tom Pride

It was a classic example of the fact that there is no such thing as BBC “impartiality”. The failure, which you hear so often, is in the tone and edge to the interview or news item. When the issue is dear to the heart of the journalist, as it seems the Iraq war is to Marr, the normally mild mannered interviewer launches into the attack with enthusiasm, fervour, aggression and even some flexibility with the numbers.

It is only human nature and it could be balanced if the BBC was careful to balance the political views and backgrounds of its journalists and management rather than continue with the pretence that those views are always subordinated to their professional journalism.

And as to Campbell – sod the politics, the man has a book to sell. A little ham acting and hey presto free coverage on all the main broadcasting bulletins for that day then acres of print and online coverage. What’s a little tear for that.

Richard

100,000 or 600,000 it really doesnt matter.
Saddam killed over a million himself during his tyranical reign.
Sexed up or down its matters little to the families of the dead. However there is a truth that is coming soon. An Iraqi will appear on the Marr show and tell him his concerns for The Baathists wellfare is touching however the people quite like being free now.

All we need do now is get Iran out of Iraq

Beer Moth

hippeipooter just got dropped by an M.I.6 sniper.

When you spill the beans on Lancet, don't blog too near the window.

Beer Moth

"But I’m curious to find out where Marr got this count from."

Usual routine I suppose: just phoned his office and asked if he would interview

Oh "count. Sorry, my mistake.

Marbury

David - Trevorsden gets to the heart of it. I would just add that my reference to the "reality-based community" was a rather despairing joke about the kind of attitude your comment above exemplifies. When it comes to Iraq, Marr and much of the British media have been tailoring their standards of truth to fit the arguments - and the people - they like or dislike. Please don't join in.

If you decide that certain people have forfeited their right to the truth, then you're not just doing a disservice to them - you're doing it to all of us.

John David Barnett

Which lead to these deaths. Oh dear!

It was led when I was at school. Still is.

Jez

HUH?!

Only 113,616 deaths?

Oh, that's fine then.

(You have to be some kind of collosal knob to say that really)

What planet are you lot from?

Simon Stephenson

David Blackburn : 6.11pm

"I'm with Blair and Campbell on the grand theme that ridding Iraq of Saddam was just."

I'm afraid that this assertion leaves too much unmentioned. You see, Mr Blackburn, the actions that were taken to remove Saddam from power were bound to have both positive and negative consequences other than just his removal.

Are you acknowledging that you evaluated all the expected consequences, in advance of the invasion, and came to the conclusion that there was a net positive?

Are you of the opinion that the actual consequences, had they been entirely predictable at the time, would still add up to a net positive?

Are you confident that those who supported the decision to invade used the highest level of due process and intellectual rigour to reach their decision?

Do you believe that the processes used by the US and UK leadership to take their nations into war with Iraq are an indication that there are insufficient checks on the executive to ensure that decisions taken are of the highest intellectual quality. That we should be concerned not specifically about Blair or Bush or Iraq, but about whether we any longer have a political system that prevents second-rate decisions from being made.

Even if your replies to these points are yes, yes, yes and no, you surely understand that there are many people who reach a different conclusion. Discussion of these differences is what politics is all about - not the trading of ill-considered slogans and soundbites.