"Bush has a lot of blood on his hands."

As does John Kerry, and every US Congressional representative that voted to give Bush the authority to go to war. Any attempts to simply hang the responsibility for the war on the Bush administration and the Republican party, are reprehensible.

John Kerry and the Democrats who voted for the authorization have just as much blood on their hands as Bush and the Republicans who voted for it.

"Frankly, If John Hopkins, Columbia medical school and the Lancet are willing to put their name on the study, I'm not inclined to question the math or the methodology."

I agree. This wasn't a political poll. It was a medical study. Those who conducted the field study were mostly Iraqi doctors, not just Iraqis. Of course, the proponents of the war on Iraq in both Britain and the US are busy denouncing this study as "flawed". I wouldn't expect otherwise.

I'm with Jack, though. While many of those involved in the study likely were opposed to the war, that doesn't mean they aren't capable of doing a sound medical study on the medical effects of the war objectively and in accordance with current medical research standards.

Was the timing of the research being released political? Yes. The researchers have said it was intended to be both political, and timed to come out before the election. Does that mean the research is flawed? Absolutely not.

And anyway, I'm quite certain the timing won't matter any way. This story simply isn't being covered by the US media, and it was released too late in the game to have any effect on the election.