If you plan on shutting down your forebrain and running on emotion, let me know. I'd deal with it differently if facts and analysis don't mean anything.

You might have actually tried to address my objection. A survey showing excess deaths across Iraq, of which 2/3rds are in a single location?

The report doesn't seem to be on the Lancet site yet. Doing a little digging on my own (not having the vast faith in Reuters that others do), I found this, which explains a bit more.

The researchers conducted their survey in September 2004. They randomly selected 33 neighborhoods of 30 homes from across Iraq and interviewed the residents about the number and ages of the people living in each home. Over 7,800 Iraqis were included. Residents were questioned about the number of births and deaths that occurred in the household since January 2002. Information was also collected about the causes and circumstances of each death. When possible, the deaths were verified with a death certificate or other documentation.

The researchers compared the mortality rate among civilians in Iraq during the 14.6 months prior to the March 2003 invasion with the 17.8 month period following the invasion. The sample group reported 46 deaths prior to the March 2003 and 142 deaths following the invasion. The results were calculated twice, both with and without information from the city of Falluja. The researchers felt the excessive violence from combat in Falluja could skew the overall mortality rates. Excluding information from Falluja, they estimate that 100,000 more Iraqis died than would have been expected had the invasion not occurred. Eighty-four percent of the deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery.

Still not enough information to do numbers on my own, although it clarifies the Fallujah question. A little work with the limited numbers gave me this:

- A mortality rate of 46 out of 7,800 is 0.58 percent, or about 590 deaths per 100,000 population. This is in Iraq. Before the invasion. Under Saddam and sanctions.

- The death rate for the United States in 2001 was 849 per 100,000. I stopped doing numbers at this point. Do you buy the Iraq number? Why? Hell, the mortality rate in Sweden is around 1,000 per 100,000. Are they talking about deaths other than by natural causes? Age-standardized statistics? Again, insufficient data.

That isn't the only number that doesn't hold up very well either.

Until further notice and further data, I see this as classic GIGO, based on anecdotal evidence and not much else. Yet this number is going to be picked up and declared gospel by every leftist gasbrain on the Net.

And then there was this:

Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, said the research which was submitted to the journal earlier this month had been peer-reviewed, edited and fast-tracked for publication because of its importance in the evolving security situation in Iraq.

I'm sure the election had nothing to do with it.