Better than Saddam

That useful journalistic standby, "Staff and agencies", today demonstrates his relaxed grasp of the language by abolishing the distinction between deny and discredit. Aptly enough, he did so in a piece about George W Bush, who has respondified to the latest estimate of Iraqi collateral damage with characteristically robust rejectitude. A "lot of innocent people" have been detrimented, Bush admits; not being one to dabble in legal obligations and such, he does not know how many, but he positilutely and certifinately does not attach credibilitude to the findings of a "controversial report" that excess deaths since the heady days of statue-toppling and Mission Accomplished have reached six hundred and fifty-five thousand, or about two and a half per cent of the Iraqi population. The controversial study, which was carried out by the same controversial Johns Hopkins team which carried out a previous controversial study two years ago, is causing considerable controversy, largely by virtue of the fact that the Iraqi government and the Coalition of Puppeteers disagree with it. Even the "top US general in Iraq", George Casey, disagrees with the controversial study, which makes it about as controversial as a study could possibly get. A spokesman for the sovereign, independent Iraqi government said that the controversial report "exceeds the reality in an unreasonable way", not at all like the more civilised and rational ways of reality-excession which have been evolved at the White House, the Pentagon and Downing Street. The figure cited in the controversial report, according to the sovereign, independent Iraqi government, is "inflated" and "far from the truth"; regrettably, the sovereign, independent Iraqi government continues to keep the genuine, uninflated truth to itself, so we shall just have to keep on making do with these constant overestimates.