How the Washington Post twisted the numbers on civilian deaths in Iraq

Red State ^ | July 7, 2007

[Clintonfatigued]

The news sounded ominous, with reporter Joshua Partlow openly questioning the success of the current surge strategy, stating as fact that June civilian deaths in Baghdad were much higher in comparison to January:

Nearly five months into a security strategy that involves thousands of additional U.S. and Iraqi troops patrolling Baghdad, the number of unidentified bodies found on the streets of the capital was 41 percent higher in June than in January, according to unofficial Health Ministry statistics.

During the month of June, 453 unidentified corpses, some bound, blindfolded, and bearing signs of torture, were found in Baghdad, according to morgue data provided by a Health Ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

My goodness. Depressing news like this could be enough for a weak-kneed GOP Senator to flip the other way and declare that all is lost, not even waiting to see if the new plan will work or not. The problem, however, is that the statistics Mr. Partlow used are so unreliable that the article is tantamount to a lie.

[Clintonfatigued]

Well, well, could it be that the MSM isn’t practicing objective journalism?/MAJOR sarcasm!

[vetsvette]

You can see the glee on their faces whenever they think that they have some evidence that we’re going to lose this war. Great Americans these journalists!

[FreedomCalls]

This number is not the number of “unidentified corpses” “found” in Baghdad. It is the number of people who died in Baghdad for the month with no relative to identify them. If granny died of old age at age 93 and her relatives were not around, then she is included in this count. It is not the murder rate.

[piytar]

The editors at the Washington Post need to correct this, and they need to place that correction in the exact same place where the mistake was made in the first place, which would be page A1 above the fold.

Yeah, like that bunch of traitorous MSM a##hats (redundant, I know) would ever admit to lying about the facts in order to make the US and Iraq look bad, let alone print something to that effect...

[VA Voter]

Thanks for posting this.

[lowbridge]

bump

[TASMANIANRED]

What’s the deal with the civilian deaths..US isn’t killing them. The freaking terrorists are doing it.

[syriacus]

I wonder what the world would be like if Saddam had remained in power...folks forget what a nasty power-hungry guy he was.

Containment of Saddam was failing more and more each day.

1. The oil-for-food program was corrupt
2. The weapons inspections were a farce
3. US and allied planes were targeted
4. Uninspected flights to Baghdad gutted the sanctions
5. Terrorists were training in Iraq
6. Saddam supported terrorism - $25,000 to each family of a suicide bomber (Thanks, Prost1).
7. Saddam brutalized our fellow human beings

Saddam was thumbing his nose at decent people as he rewarded his collaborators.

Bush interrupted Saddam's staging of a comeback.