That is about the most blatantly cherry-picked set of statistics I have ever seen. They're no more than factoids, little numerical baubles that do nothing but try to dazzle and distract.

"It is larger than the total number of Americans killed during combat in every major conflict, from the Revolutionary War to the first Gulf War." Comparing American combat deaths to civilian deaths after more than three years of occupation, insurgency, and civil war? You must be kidding.

"It is more than double the combined number of civilians killed in the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki."...please tell me how the death toll from three bombing missions sixty years ago somehow provides "perspective" on the death toll from more than three years of occupation, insurgency, and civil war today?

"It is a larger number than were killed in Germany during five years (and 955,044 tons) of WWII bombing." He had to go back sixty years for that one too. Love the way you turned a blind eye to the more recent and more relevant numbers I quote: 3 million in Viet Nam and the Congo; 200,000 in Darfur in 31 months.

I'm surprised you'd recommend that crude statistical smoke-and-mirrors. You're usually a bit more subtle.

As has been pointed out ad nauseum, the results can be verified by reviewing methodology and conducting independent studies, and perhaps the furor this time will light a fire hot enough to get independent studies funded.

Which may be the whole point. It rankles that the Pentagon disdains to track the deaths it causes and the deaths in the populations it's responsible for, and we all understand that the reasons are solely political. It's why Bush can get away with outrageous whoppers like his "30,000...30,000" mantra, and why such a grim and serious matter has become a political football.

I think we can agree on the need for an independent and nonpartisan investigation of the question, to perhaps finally get a handle on the human toll of the Iraw War, don't you Tom? Let's find out the truth and settle it.