When I read something, I compare it to what I know. In philosophy, the question is: Is an argument internally consistent?
New Orleans Police officers killed in the line of duty, 2005-2007: 0.
http://secure.cityofno.com/portal.aspx?portal=50&tabid=23
U.S. Casualties in Iraq, 2006: 785 KIA, other deaths 77, 6416 WIA.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm
Iraqi security forces, KIA, 2006: 1543
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20070103.aspx
If New Orleans was more dangerous than Iraq, one would expect that at least one police officer would have been killed in the line of duty since 2004. Not so, according to the NOPD web site.
The author of the article under-reported Iraqi deaths. For U.S. murder deaths, the one data point I checked. New York City, was off by 50%. The premise of the article -- that U.S. high-crime cities are more dangerous than Iraq is bunk.
No, his premise is that the murder rate in "chimpy Bush's quagmire worst blunder in US history" is similar to that of some of our big cities have had in the past.
Once again, you can say apples and oranges, but he used the AP-Iraq Gov't death numbers