Happy Independence Day Amerika

I read in New York Times:

American Flags as Big as Fields
On the field before the All-Star Game, Major League Baseball plans to assemble the largest gathering of Hall of Fame players in baseball history. And as fans salute their heroes, the former players will join the crowd in saluting the American flag — one that is roughly 75 feet by 150 feet, as long as a 15-story building is tall, spread horizontally over the Yankee Stadium turf.

If only Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels were alive!!! At least they had the good taste to use the work of an exceptionally gifted artist, Leni Riefenstahl. In today’s Amerika, all is needed is a big flag. But, as Howard Zinn reminds us, "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people".

The Great Mirage

The British Medical Journal published a few days ago “Fifty years of violent war deaths from Vietnam to Bosnia: analysis of data from the world health survey programme”

In the study’s abstract, the conclusions read: “War causes more deaths than previously estimated, and there is no evidence to support a recent decline in war deaths.”

The lead researcher, Ziad Obermeyer, a research scientist at Brigham & Women's Hospital, in Boston, says:

"There is a notion in political thought that the number of deaths due to war has been declining in recent years," Obermeyer noted. "That is attributed to a lot of different things, but among them technological innovations like 'smart' bombs and different strategic priorities. This idea appears to be supported by media reports. But what we are finding is these reports are not a reflection of reality." Contemporary media reports of deaths are not to be fully trusted, Obermeyer added. "The reason we should be skeptical of media reports is that they are subject to political pressures and cannot always be verified," he said. "These numbers can be pushed up or down, depending upon what kind of political pressure is being exerted."

Now, compare and contrast this with what John Sloboda, executive director of the Oxford Research Group and founder of Iraq Body Count said on 17 March 2008 at “Is a Just War Possible?”, a conference held at Cumberland Lodge:

“How many people have died in Iraq since the 2003 invasion? No-one knows how many have died in Iraq, not even the governments concerned, because their efforts to find out have ranged from half-hearted to non-existent. (…) It has been largely left to citizen initiatives to enact the moral imperative here implied, such as the volunteer Iraq Body Count (IBC) project, which has accumulated details on nearly 90,000 publicly documented deaths to date. Last week (beginning 9 March), another 352 were added to that meticulously compiled total, built from day-by-day scanning of the outputs of hundreds of press and media sources. More imprecise, sample-based surveys carried out in different ways and at different times have provided estimates ranging all the way up to 1.2 million.
The sheer weight of numbers overwhelms and numbs us. As Joseph Stalin is believed to have said, “One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic”. Losing the details of individual victims behind anonymous and easily disputed “expert estimates” dehumanises them, and contributes to a growing indifference to the truth. Iraqi dead have simply “ceased to count” for many of us.” [PDF Link]

Mr. Sloboda could hardly be more misleading, could he? Iraq Body Count has been continuously quoted by the warmongers - Bush’s “30,000, more or less”, remember? - and the state-corporate media; even more disgracefully, IBC is also been the darling of the Western so-called anti-war movement, its think-tanks and alternative media. The hypocrisy is overwhelming!

Just two recent examples – among many – of this deadly hypocrisy.

Robert Fisk, known as the best British reporter, wrote a few days ago, “tens of thousands dead in Iraq”, when the best estimates tell us that the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, the Nuremberg’s supreme international crime, may have slaughtered well over 1.2 million Iraqi citizens.

Why does Robert of Arabia, the Middle East correspondent of the British Independent, keep deceiving his readers on the most important point of the most outrageous scandal of our times, the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq?

In a recent correspondence with Human Rights Watch, I was told: “We do not do any numbers on this, as it would be just guessing – no one really knows how many have died.”

Human Rights Watch’s hypocrisy is nauseating if only one considers the efforts they put for well over a decade in promoting the story of Saddam’s genocide against his own people. The propaganda is thick and repeated as a mantra; for a different take, here some material you may want to read:

A Glimpse of The Past: A War Crime or an Act of War?
Stephen C. Pelletiere – NYTimes

Report Suppressed: Iran Gassed Kurds, Not Iraq
Raju Thomas, Times of India

Saddam Hussein Did Not Commit Genocide
Jude Wanniski

What Happened at Halabja?
Jude Wanniski

In Defense of Saddam Hussein
Jude Wanniski

In Defense of 'Chemical Ali'
Jude Wanniski

Human Rights Watch had a leading role in the Empire’s propaganda to brainwash the public opinion both in the preparation for the invasion of Iraq (and after, in normalizing its occupation) and, more broadly, in selling the oxymoronic “humanitarian interventions”. Read for example:

Human Rights Watch in Service to the War Party

Lynching Saddam – Part 7: the Myth of Human Rights

Watching Human Rights Watch
Open Letter to Kenneth Roth, Executive Director Human Rights Watch

We live inside the Great Mirage, the most sophisticated illusion-machine ever created by humankind: a ruthless, immoral, greedy global empire of Anglo-American flavour, hidden behind a façade of liberalism and fake opposition. In these hours the machine is working to serve the next delusion, Barack Obama, with the complicity of the self-deluded Lib-Left, because – as an Italian wrote last century – "Everything has to change so that nothing changes".

The Anti-war.com’s Midsummer Night's Dream

The Anti-war.com’s Midsummer Night's Dream

To celebrate the summer solstice, Ivan Eland, the director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute, wrote a romantic comedy published by Antiwar.com, titled “Lessons for Iraq from the Former Yugoslavia”.

Eland writes:

“Unfortunately, in the 1990s, violence during Yugoslavia's break up tended to be directly proportional to the ethno-sectarian diversity of the geographical entity. Slovenia – the most ethnically, religiously, culturally, and linguistically homogeneous of the former Yugoslav states – had the least violence during the disintegration. After a war of independence from Yugoslavia in 1991 that lasted only 10 days and killed only 70 people, Slovenia has flourished politically and economically. In contrast, in the more ethnically and religiously diverse Croatia, severe violence occurred in its subsequent war of independence. Even worse, the most ethnically and religiously heterogeneous piece of geography in the former Yugoslavia – Bosnia – had a brutal civil war with the worst atrocities committed in Europe since World War II.”

Like in every comedy, there must be some humor. Here you go:

“The Western powers, led by the United States, became involved and forced the parties into the uneasy Dayton peace accord. The primary reason that Bosnia has not exploded into renewed civil war since the 1990s is the Dayton accord's creation of a decentralized Bosnian state. Such a governing arrangement allows each group – the Serbs, the Croats, and the Muslims – to have autonomous governance and a veto over decisions by the weak central government. The structure is not perfect, but it has helped prevent further eruptions of ethno-sectarian carnage.”

In other words, the barbarians were helped by the generous Western powers who “became involved” to bring about peace. Of course that is exactly what happened; the NATO and the US’ role was precisely that one. No doubt about that!

For a “slightly” different reading of what happened then in Yugoslavia, please read: The Dismantling of Yugoslavia: A Study in Inhumanitarian Intervention (and a Western Liberal-Left Intellectual and Moral Collapse) written by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson

Now, back to the Anti-war.com’s Midsummer Night's Dream. Barbarians in Yugoslavia, barbarians in Iraq. Thank God the world can count on Uncle Sam and its many nephews, always so enlightened and generous of brilliant ideas. Eland gives us the solution for Iraq:

“Given Iraq's history of one group dominating the central government machinery – the Sunnis – and using it to oppress the other groups – the Kurds and the Shi'a – [ALERT: you’re reading PROPAGANDA] the groups will likely eventually fight over any significant central government power. Thus, to prevent an all-out civil war when the United States finally pulls its finger out of the dike and withdraws its military forces from the country, the power of the Iraqi government will probably have to be reduced to a weak confederation of autonomous regions based on voluntary tribal or ethno-sectarian associations. And even then, the best Iraq can probably hope for is uneasy stability – similar to that afforded to Bosnia by its weak confederation.”

Back to reality. The US illegal invasion and occupation is responsible for the Iraq genocide, including the sectarian violence and the ethnic cleansing occurred AFTER THAT INVASION. The myth [the bad Sunni oppressing Kurds and Shi’a] on which the Antiwar.com’s author builds his shameful proposal [the partition of Iraq], is just one of the many propaganda tools the Empire sold its ruthless adventure. [Just out of curiosity, have you noticed that since the 2003 US-led invasion-occupation of that country, Iraq’s citizens are not called Iraqis anymore but Muslims or Christians, Sunni or Shi’a, Arabs or Kurds? Interesting, isn’t it?].

This is the so-called anti-war movement in the West. The old Zionist dream, the partition of Iraq – probably the real, initial goal of the 2003 illegal invasion and occupation – is now sold to the brainwashed Western audiences with an antiwar label on it.

Of course it’s difficult to get rid of this white-man syndrome, especially the Anglo-Saxon variety; the very core of imperialism and colonialism, this racist idea that nourishes even in the best intentioned minds: teaching these inferior races how to live their lives and run their business. Ivan Eland and Antiwar.com should maybe consider if instead a better idea could be the partition of the United States of Amnesia. This planet (including the vast majority of the US citizens) would surely live much better. And in peace, at last!

HAPPY DAYS - Part I: Human Rights Watch's Amnesia

Part I - Human Rights Watch's Amnesia: An e-mail exchange with Human Rights Watch's John H. Biaggi - Acting Director Human Rights Watch International Film Festival

Dear John Biaggi,

I’m sure you’re very busy with the HRW Film Festival these days, but there is an urgent matter I’d kindly like you to consider.

I’ve just read in the Village Voice an article that reads:

The body count at the Human Rights Watch International Film Festival rivals any in Hollywood's summer shoot-'em-ups: 400,000 killed in Laos; 250,000 slaughtered in Chechnya; 40,000 murdered in Chad; 3,000 Chileans disappeared under Pinochet; 1,000 Lebanese felled by Israeli bombs. Now add Iraq to the equation—some 90,000 violent civilian deaths and counting, according to IraqBodyCount.org—and you have a serious accounting of carnage, both past and present, reflected at this year's 19th annual event. [The Political Is Personal at the Human Rights Watch Fest. Putting a human face on global atrocity. by Anthony Kaufman June 3rd, 2008]

From the article I don’t understand if the figures about Iraq taken from Iraq Body Count has been adopted by HRW or it was just an insert from the Village Voice’s journalist.

As you surely know, the best estimates indicate the real figure is likely in excess of one million dead. I’m sending here below some resources I hope can be useful both to Human Rights Watch Film Festival and to the press.

Thank you and good luck with the festival.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

Useful resources:

Iraq: the Human Cost

Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates

ORB Update on Iraqi Casualty Data

Answers to Questions About Iraq Mortality Surveys

Counting Iraqi Casualties -- and a Media Controversy

What is the real death toll in Iraq?

Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust'

***

Hi Gabriele,

All the figures in this article are entirely the journalists, not HRW figures. Thanks for pointing this out.

Regards,
-John

***

Hi John,

Thank you for your quick reply. I appreciate it, especially knowing how busy you must be in these days with the HRW film festival.

The Village Voice’s article is indeed misleading. I wrote to them but I didn’t get any reply.

If I can abuse of your time and kindness for just one more question, do you know if HRW has an official position on the death toll in the Iraq war? Or can you please tell me to whom I may ask this question within HRW? I really would appreciate your help a lot.

Thank you very much – and by the way, I’m truly a great admirer of your festival which I think is really the best, more intelligent film festival running today.

Best wishes,
Gabriele

***

Hi Gabriele,

I’m asking around, will hopefully come back with a person here who can answer your question.

Thanks for the kind words about the festival!
-John

***

Got a response. We do not do any numbers on this, as it would be just guessing – no one really knows how many have died.
-J

***

Thanks John,

Sorry to bother you again with this, but I don’t understand. In 2006 a study was published in the British medical journal The Lancet. The Washington Post reported at the time:

Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, called the survey method "tried and true," and added that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have."

This viewed was echoed by Sarah Leah Whitson, an official of Human Rights Watch in New York, who said, "We have no reason to question the findings or the accuracy" of the survey.

"I expect that people will be surprised by these figures," she said. "I think it is very important that, rather than questioning them, people realize there is very, very little reliable data coming out of Iraq."

I sent you the the following important links in a previous e-mail:

Iraq: the Human Cost

Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates

ORB Update on Iraqi Casualty Data

Answers to Questions About Iraq Mortality Surveys

Counting Iraqi Casualties -- and a Media Controversy

What is the real death toll in Iraq?

Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust'

Frankly, I’m really surprised by your reply. Is that the official position of HRW? This is quite a delicate matter, so I’d like to be sure I understand correctly.

Thank you again for your time and kindness.

Best wishes,
Gabriele

***

The correspondence ends here since I haven't got any further reply from Human Rights Watch. But please stay tuned! More on Human Rights Watch and the Brave New Empire in HAPPY DAYS - Part II

Robert Fisk keeps deceiving you

Dear Editors of CommonDreams,

You have today reposted an article from the UK Independent by Robert Fisk

Disgracefully, in his article Robert Fisk writes: “tens of thousands dead in Iraq”.

I have no illusions whatsoever that the corporate Independent may consider to issue a correction and have no interest in speculating why Fisk keeps ignoring the Iraq’s reality and deceiving his readers.

However I still hope CommonDreams may respect at least the memory of those Iraqis killed by our governments. Once again I urge you to issue a formal, visible correction of this dreadful charade of journalism.

When the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, the Nuremberg’s supreme international crime, may have slaughtered well over 1.2 million Iraqi citizens, Fisk’s words equal genocide denial.

Thank you

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini
http://thecatsdream.com

P.S. ONCE AGAIN! Here some useful resources:

Iraq: the Human Cost

Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates

ORB Update on Iraqi Casualty Data

Answers to Questions About Iraq Mortality Surveys

Counting Iraqi Casualties -- and a Media Controversy

What is the real death toll in Iraq?

Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust'

Action Alert: Support George Monbiot. Write to the Guardian.

“It is certain, in any case, that ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have” – James Baldwin

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." - Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals - Nuremberg, Germany 1946

Last Sunday at the Hay festival activist and journalist George Monbiot called for a citizen's arrest of war criminal John Bolton, one of the architects of the war of aggression against Iraq, the Nuremberg’s supreme international crime. The Guardian reported it and Monbiot wrote, always on the Guardian, about it.

It’s unfortunate that the Guardian’s readers had to count on Michael White to know the rest of the story.

Michael White, assistant editor of the Guardian and its political editor from 1990-2006, wrote two pieces on this story; Campaigner fails to arrest ex-Bush official over 'war crimes', Michael White, the Guardian, Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - and - What I really think about John Bolton, Michael White, the Guardian, Thursday, May 29, 2008

In both pieces Michael White fails to understand – and therefore to explain it to the Guardian’s readers - the illegality of the war of aggression against Iraq, the Nuremberg’s supreme international crime.

It seems White doesn’t understand that Monbiot’s action was grounded on international law and – to use Monbiot’s words – he reinforces that “process of normalisation” thanks to which a major war criminal “will be coming here - to Hay-on-Wye, the epicentre of polite society - to promote his book and sell some copies.” In other words, normalizing the unthinkable.

Among serious international law experts there are no doubts about the illegality of the war of aggression against Iraq. "This intervention is illegal” denounced former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali in 2003. “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal", condemned then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in 2004

It’s really unfortunate Michael White doesn’t get it. Even more unfortunate because it’s not the first time White seems not to understand complex matters but decides nevertheless to offer his opinion to the Guardian’s readers.

In October 2006 he wrote, always on the Guardian:

“I have two problems. Firstly, the figures offered by the study range from 392,976 to 942,636, so the 655,000 estimate splits the difference. This is both strikingly imprecise (not necessarily avoidable), and also at variance with other estimates, both governmental and more disinterested. The Observer's Peter Beaumont, who explained the horrifying murder campaign against professional Iraqi women on Sunday, sets out the numbers in today's Guardian: 98,000 (US researchers), 128,000 (Iraqi NGOs).

Either way, that is appalling and the manner of the US-UK occupation, notably the abolition of internal security without adequate ground forces to sustain law and order against criminal and ''resistance'' forces, has much to answer for: one third, according to the Lancet. One goal of the invasion was to end the loss of Iraqi civilian life - 500,000 on some estimates - caused by the UN sanctions imposed to stop Saddam Hussein troubling his neighbours again.

My second problem arises from Lancet editor, Richard Horton's, commentary in today's Guardian. It transpires that he has views on Iraq, the invasion of 2003 and what will put things right: the withdrawal of US and other coalition forces. This is a leap of logic which seems quite brave. But it would allow a lot of people to sit back and wash their hands of what happens next. When you can't blame the Yanks it's less fun.” [A serious note of caution. I have two problems with the Lancet's headline-grabbing estimates of Iraqi casualties, Michael White, the Guardian, October 12, 2006]

In March 2008 he wrote, always on the Guardian:

“It will not be enough to spare the paper attacks from people for whom the bad news cannot be bad enough. When I queried the Lancet/Johns Hopkins estimate of a likely 600,000 dead in 2006, as being improbably out of line with all other data, I got a kicking. Others still share my view. I stand by it.” [Invasion was the least worst option. One way or another most of us got it wrong about Iraq, Michael White, the Guardian, March 20, 2008]

Yet in March 2008 he confessed me a third problem he didn’t dare to tell the Guardian’s readers:

“a complex subject which arouses strong emotions as well as difficult technical arguments about data and methodology which few of us (certainly not me) can claim to understand.”

Some common sense would have suggested Michael White to look for some experts’ advice before writing an uninformed comment for the Guardian’s readers. It seems his writings on the legality of the Iraq war, the Nuremberg’s supreme international crime, and on Monbiot’s action about Bolton, lacked the same common sense.

It’s unfortunate the Guardian’s readers are offered such a bad level of journalism in such paramount issues.

The UNESCO’s International Principles of Professional Ethics in Journalism also seem to support George Monbiot:

Principal VIII: Respect for Universal Values and Diversity of Cultures

A true journalist stands for the universal values of humanism, above all peace, democracy, human rights, social progress and national liberation, while respecting the distinctive character, value and dignity of each culture, as well as the right of each people freely to choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems. Thus the journalist participates actively in the social transformation towards democrative betterment of society and contributes through dialogue to a climate of confidence in international relations conducive to peace and justice everywhere, to d?tente, disarmament and national development. It belongs to the ethics of the profession that they journalist be aware of relevant provisions contained in international conventions, declarations and resolutions.

Principle IX: Elimination of War and Other Great Evils Confronting Humanity

The ethical commitment to the universal values of humanism calls for the journalist to abstain from any justification for, or incitement to, wars of aggression, and the arms race, especially in nuclear weapons, and all other forms of violence, hatred or discrimination, especially racialism and apartheid, oppression by tyrannical regimes, colonialism and neo-colonialism, as well as other great evils which afflict humanity, such as poverty, malnutrition and diseases. By so doing, the journalist can help eliminate ignorance and misunderstanding among peoples, make nationals of a country sensitive to the needs and desires of others, ensure the respect for the rights and dignity of all nations, all peoples and all individuals without distinction of race, sex, language, nationality, religion or philosophical conviction.

In times when the state-corporate media and many of its professional journalists and editors are actively aiding and abetting in war crimes and crimes against humanity and contribute to normalize the unthinkable, George Monbiot deserves all the support we can offer him.

Please write to:

Michael White - Assistant editor of the Guardian and its political editor from 1990-2006
michael.white@guardian.co.uk

Siobhain Butterworth – Guardian’s reader editor
siobhain.butterworth@guardian.co.uk
reader@guardian.co.uk

George Monbiot
g.monbiot@zetnet.co.uk


Please maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

An Immemorial Day for the progressive media

Four among the most prestigious US progressive media outlets (CommonDreams, CounterPunch, TruthOut and ZNet) published on Memorial Day (26-5-’08) an article titled “War Immemorial Day – No Peace for Militarized U.S.” penned by Bill Quigley.

One paragraph in particular got my attention:

2003 to present Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom. 4082 U.S. military killed. British medical journal Lancet estimates over 90,000 civilian deaths. Iraq Body Count estimates over 84,000 civilians killed.

On May 27, I spent much time writing emails to the article’s author and to the editors of CommonDreams, CounterPunch, TruthOut and ZNet as well as to other writers, intellectuals and activists.

You may read the full correspondence on my blog, Giant mistakes on CounterPunch AND CommonDreams AND TruthOut AND ZNet RE: Iraq war death toll, Lancet and IBC

Following are the changes those progressive media made (or didn’t make) to the original paragraph.

ORIGINAL PARAGRAPH: "2003 to present Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom. 4082 U.S. military killed. British medical journal Lancet estimates over 90,000 civilian deaths. Iraq Body Count estimates over 84,000 civilians killed."

CommonDreams' correction: “2003 to present Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom. 4082 U.S. military killed. British medical journal Lancet estimates over 655,000 civilian deaths. Iraq Body Count estimates over 84,000 civilians killed.”

CounterPunch's correction: “2003 to present Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom. 4082 U.S. military killed. Civilian deaths? Researchers from Johns Hopkins, using the most orthodox and conservative sampling methodology, reported in the Lancet, after extensive peer review, their estimate of a post-invasion civilian death toll of about 655,000 by the end of 2006.”

TruthOut didn’t issue any correction but deleted the paragraph in question; no explanation was given to the readers.

ZNet didn’t issue any correction (as yet?) and ZNet’s readers can still read: “2003 to present Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom. 4082 U.S. military killed. British medical journal Lancet estimates over 90,000 civilian deaths. Iraq Body Count estimates over 84,000 civilians killed.” (see update)

Waiting for ZNet to develop a resistance strategy (hopefully ZNet’s Michael Albert won’t tell anyone to call me “contemptable” again – as he did a few months ago in a similar situation) it’s important to consider the following:

1) The article in question, in its original edition, has been posted, sent and forwarded from those four outlets all through the internet to several websites, mailing lists, forums and so on. The correction issued by CounterPunch and CommonDreams and the unusual deletion made by TruthOut won’t touch those who already had read the article on these three outlets, even less those who are still reading it around the internet.

2) ZNet distinguished itself - once again! - for its peculiar fashion to edit a publication; its readers are - once again! - deceived by an article ZNet published but ZNet’s editors don’t think to issue a simple correction: probably too bourgeois for the Z world? (see update)

3) Bill Quigley’s article appeared simultaneously in some among the most prestigious US left progressive media. One wonders why this article could reach such a vast readership. One wonders why the author mentioned, next to Iraq Body Count, the Lancet study published in 2004 instead of the one published in 2006. One wonders why all those left progressive media could miss altogether such giant mistakes. One wonders why ZNet decided to not issue any correction (See update). One wonders…

UPDATE: Today, at 9:40 pm London Time - ZNet published the following correction:

2003 to present Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom. 4082 U.S. military killed. Civilian deaths? Researchers from Johns Hopkins, using the most orthodox and conservative sampling methodology, reported in the Lancet, after extensive peer review, their estimate of a post-invasion civilian death toll of about 655,000 by the end of 2006.

Let’s welcome the correction, of course. Better late than never!

Giant mistakes on CounterPunch AND CommonDreams AND TruthOut AND ZNet RE: Iraq war death toll, Lancet and IBC

Dear Bill Quigley,

Thanks for your article “War Immemorial Day” published on CounterPunch on 26 may 2008. You write:

2003 to present Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom. 4082 U.S. military killed. British medical journal Lancet estimates over 90,000 civilian deaths. Iraq Body Count estimates over 84,000 civilians killed.

I’d like to bring to your attention two grave errors and kindly ask you to correct them.

The first, giant mistake is that the 2006 Lancet study estimated more than 650,000 deaths as a result of the US illegal war of aggression of Iraq. That was two years ago. [Then there was a ORB poll that estimated more than a million deaths.]

The second mistake is that the IBC figures are NOT estimates but a simple count based mostly on Western media reports.

Please, will you issue a correction as soon as possible and ask CounterPunch to publish it. Here below you find more info on this important matter.

Thank you for your time.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini
London
http://thecatsdream.com

Useful resources:

Iraq: the Human Cost

Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates

ORB Update on Iraqi Casualty Data

Answers to Questions About Iraq Mortality Surveys

Counting Iraqi Casualties -- and a Media Controversy

What is the real death toll in Iraq?

Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust'

***

UPDATE

Dear Bill Quigley,

I have now seen that your article is also published on CommonDreams.

Please, I urge you once again to issue a proper correction and to ask both CommonDreams and CounterPunch to publish it.

I also kindly ask CommonDreams and CounterPunch to issue a formal correction so to inform their readers about those GIANT mistakes. It’s really appalling to read those GIANT mistakes in progressive media outlets such as CounterPunch and CommonDreams.

Thank you all for your time

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

UPDATE 2: Bill Quigley's reply

Gabriele Zamparini:
Thank you. I will.
Bill Quigley

***

UPDATE 3: REPLY TO BILL QUIGLEY

Dear Bill Quigley,

Thank you for your reply.

I have just seen your article has also been published by TruthOut

I hope TruthOut too, together with CounterPunch and CommonDreams, will issue a proper, formal correction and give it the same space and relevance in their websites as the original article.

This is a very serious, giant mistake and it’s appalling that three well respected, progressive news outlets could let it reach their readerships.

I look forward to reading the correction on TruthOut, CounterPunch and CommonDreams (anywhere else?)

Thank you for your time

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

UPDATE 4: Bill Quigley's reply

Dear Gabriele Zamparini:
I have alerted the outlets. Counterpunch will make the correction this afternoon. The others are in process. This is my error and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention.
Bill Quigley

***

UPDATE 5: REPLY TO BILL QUIGLEY

Dear Bill Quigley,

Thank you again for your reply.

After CounterPunch, CommonDreams and TruthOut, I have now noticed that your article is on ZNet as well.

It seems ZNet has not learned yet to report correctly on this important matter and it’s still allowing this kind of mistakes to reach its readers.

I wonder why this article has spread so quickly on all these left progressive media outlets. This certainly is the coincidence of the year!

Well done!!!

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

UPDATE 6: REPLY TO BILL QUIGLEY

Dear Bill Quigley,

I have just read now the correction on CommonDreams. It reads: “2003 to present Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom. 4082 U.S. military killed. British medical journal Lancet estimates over 655,000 civilian deaths. Iraq Body Count estimates over 84,000 civilians killed.”

I guess this correction will appear (sooner or later) on all the other prestigious left progressive media?

First of all, those left progressive media’s unlucky readers who happen to have already read your article will NEVER read that correction. Maybe those prestigious left progressive media should have given a more prominent space to this correction and be professional enough to assume their own responsibility

Also, this is NOT an acceptable correction, because:

1) you write “2003 to present” and then you continue, “British medical journal Lancet estimates over 655,000 civilian deaths”. That Lancet’s was published in 2006. Two years ago. That is NOT “present” exactly.

2) you write “Iraq Body Count estimates”. Iraq Body Count doesn’t estimate anything; as I wrote you, the IBC is a simple count.

CounterPunch and ZNet are still giving more time to their readers to be misinformed. Take it easy, as you say in the US.

TruthOut didn’t issue any correction but deleted any reference to Iraq. Considering what I wrote above and in my previous emails, maybe that was the wiser choice!

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

UPDATE 7: REPLY TO BILL QUIGLEY

Dear Bill Quigley,

Just to let you and everyone on this mailing list know the latest:

CounterPunch has finally made a good correction, which is different from (and much better than) the CommonDreams’ I previously reported. The CounterPunch correction is:

“2003 to present Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom. 4082 U.S. military killed. Civilian deaths? Researchers from Johns Hopkins, using the most orthodox and conservative sampling methodology, reported in the Lancet, after extensive peer review, their estimate of a post-invasion civilian death toll of about 655,000 by the end of 2006.”

Credits to CounterPunch even though all those unlucky readers who happen to have already read your article in these days on CounterPunch will never read that correction.

Two days and many e-mails later, Michael Albert’s ZNet seem to be the only left progressive media to have left your original article intact and ZNet’s readers can still read:

“2003 to present Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom. 4082 U.S. military killed. British medical journal Lancet estimates over 90,000 civilian deaths. Iraq Body Count estimates over 84,000 civilians killed.”

The Spirit of Resistance Lives... somewhere else!

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

P.S. I have just found in my e-mail box a sarcastic e-mail from ZNet’s Paul Street, one of the people included in this little mailing list. Paul authored a good article published a few days ago on ZNet. It’s unfortunate this good article contains the following paragraph:

As veteran journalist and author Jonathan Steele notes in his important book "DEFEAT: Why America and Britain Lost Iraq" (2008), the latest reliable mortality estimates from the leading British medical journal The Lancet "suggest that more people have been killed in Iraq during the occupation than during the 32 years of Saddam [Hussein]'s rule. Even the [research group] Iraq Body Count, which uses a statistically more conservative methodology and tabulates deaths confirmed by at least two sources," Steele notes, "produces a death toll of civilians killed by violence that averages around 16,000 annually over the first four years of the occupation. The annual rate of killing exceeds Saddam's." (Steele 2006, p. 250).

What’s even more striking is that in a correspondence I had with him a few months ago, Paul agreed that IBC was playing a bad role and he assured me he wouldn’t use IBC numbers again. Private vices and public virtues?

***

READ THE UPDATES HERE