Why We Should Be in the Streets on March 19

Doctors blast US casualty counts of Iraqi civilians -- Protest March 19!

As we approach the second anniversary of the illegal invasion and occupation
of Iraq, a new report is blasting the U.S. and UK governments' Iraqi
casualty counts. The independent British Medical Journal is now supporting
the Lancet Journal Report that over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed
since the beginning of the war. (see story below).
As evidenced by the conscious targeting of Iraqi cities, especially through
aerial bombings, the real number of deaths may never be known. The Pentagon
has kept what we all know hidden and has even said that counting civilian
deaths is not part of military policy.

With ever-growing numbers opposed to the war in Iraq as well as Bush's
attempts to dismantle Social Security and other social programs, there has
never been a better time to be in the streets than on March 19.
There are over 1000 cities around the world that will be holding
demonstrations on March 19-20. In San Francisco we will gather at 11am at
Dolores Park followed by a march and rally at the Civic Center.

____________________
International group of doctors blast official toll of Iraqi civil dead
Thu Mar 10, 7:11 PM ET
PARIS (AFP) - A group of top public-health physicians has branded the
official toll of civilian dead from the Iraqi war as a serious underestimate
and demanded an independent probe to establish the full casualty figures.

Their statement is published this Saturday in the weekly British Medical
Journal (BMJ) as the second anniversary of the war looms on March 20.
It marks a fresh attempt by medical campaigners to establish the number of
Iraqi civilian casualties after a rough estimate of 100,000 dead, made by
epidemiologists last October, was brushed aside by the British government.
"Monitoring casualties is a humanitarian imperative," the statement said.
"Understanding the causes of death is a core public-health responsibility,
nationally and internationally.
"Yet neither the public, nor we as public-health professionals, are able to
obtain validated, reliable information about the extent of mortality and
morbidity since the invasion of Iraq."
The statement is signed by 23 leading specialists from five countries (the
United States, Britain, Australia, Canada and Spain), led by Klim McPherson,
a visiting professor of epidemiology at the University of Oxford.
The doctors pour scorn on the sole official toll, compiled by the Iraqi
ministry of health. This lists 3,853 civilian deaths and 15,517 injuries
during the first six months of the war, the BMJ said separately in a news
report.
The signatories complained that the ministry is "likely seriously to
underestimate" the toll, as it only includes violence-related deaths that
are officially reported through the health system, nor mortality from
non-violent causes.

The October 2004 estimate of around 100,000 civilian deaths, published in
the British journal The Lancet, was based on interviews among people in 988
households who were asked about deaths among their families. The figures
were then extrapolated nationally.
The deaths were caused mainly by violence (with coalition air strikes the
biggest attributed sources), as well as additional cases of fatal heart
attack, stroke, neo-natal death and infectious disease inflicted by the
conflict, The Lancet study said.
Its authors said it was a useful, and conservatively derived, estimate but
acknowledged its limitations, both in the number of interviews and the
conditions in which the questions were made.
The British Foreign Office described The Lancet figures as unreliable and
said it had no legal responsibility under the Geneva Convention to count
civilian casualties, a position also taken by its ally, the United States.