Teribus:

Bobert and others wave this figure of 650,000 around like a flag. The study itself is more careful in its language the phrase "may have died" is used as opposed to the blunt statement "have died". Bobert and others ignore the range that the study details, lowest just over 392,000 compared to a highest of just over 942,500, both figures the study claims are just estimated numbers of people who may have died. From this the median figure of 650,000 is derived.

Actually, it's the other way around: The mean is estimated, and then the SEM applied for the confidence intervals.

Iraq Body Count also provides a range of lowest and highest. The lowest are deaths confirmed independently by two sources, the highest are deaths that are only confirmed by one source.

And the "high end" here is obviously missing those that were not confirmed by one "report[] from recognised newsgathering agencies and leading English-language newspapers". IOW, the "high end" is just the "high end" of those reported under those restrictive conditions.

Game Plan? What on earth are you talking about?

1) Oust Saddam - Official US Government Policy since 1998 - True? Please don't argue that is simply a matter of record.

Ummmm, ousting rulers we don't like (even those that are pretty malign, such as Rummy's friend Saddam was) through military invasion is not exactly legal and/or proper. But perhaps some humanitarian countries might get together and relieve us of the Long National Nightmare we're labouring under, using the Iraq invasion as precedent. Say, do you think that Dubya's head would snap off? What a YouTube hit that would be....

BeardedBrucie is having another hallucination:

Why would Saddam keep the inspectors out until March, if he was NOT hiding WMD programs?

He didn't. They were there on the ground Nov. 18th, 2002. You're welcome to your own hallucinations (but titrating the Haldol up a notch might help there), but not your own "facts".

Cheers,