Thanks C-D-P for taking the time to read my post - I appreciate it.

On June 9 2000, the Washington Post and New York Times both reported the figure of 1.7 million dead in the Congo without challenge. The media reported the figures with essentially zero mention of any concerns about the validity of the methodology used. The same methodology was used in relation to Iraqi deaths post-invasion in 2003 but it was during this time that the methodology became a hot political potato. Instead, the media preferred to cite the more controversial and now discredited Iraq Body Count (IBC) figures.

As with the Congo, the study into the deaths of Iraqi's was undertaken by Les Roberts of the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health on 6 October 2006 and published in the medical journal The Lancet, where he stated that "655,000 excess deaths had occured since the 2003 invasion". To repeat then, the Congo methodology was widely accepted and reported but when this exact same methodology was used in relation to Iraq the media decided to cite the IBC figures instead. The inference that can be reasonably drawn is that the IBC figures, rather than the Lancet figures, were cited for political reasons.

On September 14 2007 a report by the British polling organisation, Opinion Research Business (ORB) revealed that 1.2 million Iraqi civilians "have been murdered" since the March 2003 US-UK invasion" (http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_de...aspx?Newsld=78)

ORB is no dissident, anti-war outfit; it is a respected polling company that has conducted studies for customers as mainstream as the BBC and the Conservative Party.

As far as the the amount of displaced Iraqi's and those injured are concerned go to:

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0...celess_and.php