Monday, May 29, 2006 1:22 p.m. EDT
Iraq Less Violent than Washington, D.C.

Despite media coverage purporting to show that escalating violence in Iraq has the country spiraling out of control, civilian death statistics complied by Rep. Steve King, R-IA, indicate that Iraq actually has a lower civilian violent death rate than Washington, D.C.

Appearing with Westwood One radio host Monica Crowley on Saturday, King said that the incessantly negative coverage of the Iraq war prompted him to research the actual death numbers.

"I began to ask myself the question, if you were a civilian in Iraq, how could you tolerate that level of violence," he said. "What really is the level of violence?"

Using Pentagon statistics cross-checked with independent research, King said he came up with an annualized Iraqi civilian death rate of 27.51 per 100,000.

While that number sounds high - astonishingly, the Iowa Republican discovered that it's significantly lower than a number of major American cities, including the nation's capital.
"It's 45 violent deaths per 100,000 in Washington, D.C.," King told Crowley.

Other American cities with higher violent civilian death rates than Iraq include:


Detroit - 41.8 per 100,000

Baltimore - 37.7 per 100,000

Atlanta - 34.9 per 100,000

St. Louis - 31.4 per 100,000

The American city with the highest civilian death rate was New Orleans before Katrina - with a staggering 53.1 deaths per 100,000 - almost twice the death rate in Iraq.

http://tinyurl.com/oyaqp

This is all true - but the liberals who are so accustomed to crying about Iraq all the time - don't want to hear about it.

I thought several organizations/people were having a tough time estimating civilian deaths and casualties in Iraq.

What were forgetting here is that there is a war there and there are significantly less people. The United States has a problem with violence and there are a lot of people. Statistics can always be spun in a different light.

I think you need to read it again. It says "per". That is the same no matter how big or little your population is. 44 deaths per 100,000 is the same no matter if you have 400,000 or 800,000. It is still 44 "per" 100,000 no matter where.

I read about this... this survey was debunked. It isn't counting civilian death due to the war. Just the normal "crime rates" of Iraq compared to American cities.

It was an apples and oranges right wing spin.

Or do you have a link to the original study that found this information to be true?

I am interested in seeing your survey that debunks this.

Come to think of it I think it was comparing ALL of Iraq to only our cities.

Again, I would love to see the original study.

The point is Iraq is less dangerous than New Orleans before the Hurricane wiped it out. See how the media can play tricks with you?

No, ALL of Iraq is less dangerous than New Orleans.

If you compare Baghdad to New Orleans, Baghdad is more dangerous by several hundred percent.

This is just more right wing propaganda.

That's what I was trying to say, there is war and the most effective and visible form of justice at this point is martial law.

I mean, we're talking about cities in countries that are NOT at war and comparing it with a country that has been at war for 4 years.