The first link attacks the sources, while the second claims the sources are fine, except for two.
The second one says the maximum count is probably accurate, but the minimum may be flawed, although the arguments presented for the minimum being flawed don't hold if we just want a full body count, so therefore, we can assume that, although probably not entirely accurate, it is as good as it can be, and it's better than nothing.
Your implication that it is completely false because it may not be perfectly accurate is misleading. The numbers are, after all, just estimates and are subject to revision. Further, there is no evidence of them intentionally misleading anyone, which is the point of the Mark Twain quote.
Finally, since, as an article says, the Bush administration isn't keeping a body count, then it is their own fault if the numbers don't fully support them. We have to do the best we can with what we have. If they are interested in making our estimates better, then they should help collect information.
Not that I'd really trust the numbers they'd give, but at least you could average them with the Iraq propaganda to get some numbers that might be accurate. |
