Claudia Rosett writes that if the authors of the Lancet article on deaths in Iraq “really mean to imply that it would be a safer world, or even a safer Iraq, with Saddam still in power —which is the scenario of their baseline assumption — that raises another question. May we hear more about the methodology by which they assured themselves that Saddam — who filled mass graves, gassed his own people, started two wars, and by 2003 via Oil-for-Food had pretty much corrupted his way out from under UN sanctions — would have gone on no new binges of butchery and war?”
More here.