Exchange with Telegraph's Con Coughlin

[joe emersberger]

You supported the war in Iraq based on the argument that Saddam would have gone on filling mass graves. Yet the research just published by the Lancet confirms Amnesty International's findings that in the years prior to the war there was no large scale assault on civilians by the regime. [1] The worst was done - with Western support. Noting this, and other considerations, Human Rights Watch published a report rejecting the "humanitarian argument" for war.[2]

In contrast, the war has most likely produced 100,000 deaths according to the report Lancet published. An estimate arrived at scientifically, that excludes the Anbar Governorate (that includes Falluja) where most of the fighting has taken place, and includes the relatively quiet areas under Kurdish control.

Would you now concede that the "humanitarian argument" has been completely demolished?

Regards,

Joe Emersberger

[1] http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf
[2] see HRW PRESS RELEASE: http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=2737
<>

Coughlin's reply: who the hell are you?

My reponse:

I signed my letter, but I appreciate the honesty with which you express contempt for regular folks. The media would be much more accountable to the public by now if it responded more frequently to polite queries as you do.

Regards,

Joe Emersberger

[joe emersberger]

Coughlin's next reply was "read the paper"