I don't want to seem too cranky and picky about this, but I have noticed a trend in language that seems to me to reflect something more profound: there is no longer a distinction between "amount" and "number" or "less" and "fewer."  We now talk about the amount of people killed, not the number.  The number denotes individuals counted one by one; amount denotes quantity.

To me this general change in the use of language says something.  I think it would be better if we retained this distinction in language that denotes the integrity of individuals, rather than measuring them in heaps.  We count people; we measure quantities, and our collective failure to cope with that may have something to do with our failure to understand the consequences of big decisions on indviduals and families.  

"The end of all intelligent analysis is to clear the way for synthesis." H.G. Wells "It's not dark yet, but it's getting there." Bob Dylan

The methodology used in the study, cluster sampling, is pretty sound for measuring population wide factors when there is no access to the whole population.  Subgroups are studies and then corrected for variation from the data set of the whole population.
This is the same methodology that BushCo cites to talk about the casualty rates in Darfur, or even those that resulted from Saddam's attacks on the Kurds and the Shi'ites in the South of Iraq.
Like all statistics, it comes with a confidence interval- even a whopping 50% would give 300,000 dead- still an abomination- and the sampling gives a more accurate number than that.
The other numbers are reported deaths, that is deaths reported through official channels and reported, either in the media (Iraq Body Count) or through the U.S. military's tracking of civilian casualties (mostly for the purpose of paying compensation)- SInce much of Iraq is as violent or more violent than Baghdad, and only middle class neighborhoods of Baghdad and a few other major cities are sources of 'reported' deaths, it makes sense to find that the 'reported' death rate is about 10% of the overall death rate.
Eventually this will be well settled when a census gets done and the results compared to the food ration records maintained during Saddam's regime- when that happens I think it likely that even the number of deaths estimated by Hopkins will be low.  
Combine the half million dead with the 800,000 who have fled the country and Iraq has been completely denuded of its future.
In a just world Bush and many others would face jail for this.

If you seek peace and fulfilment rather than wealth and power you must take up the reins of government or else you will be ruled by tyrants

I have a long commute these days, a 50+ minute drive home. I hadn't heard about this study yet. Tonight I was driving home, radio off, just thinking, and I kept having images in my mind of Bush being questioned in public about the deaths in Iraq.

I imagined--one of those Philip K. Dick kind of experiences where the image seems to be beamed down to you by satellite--that a young woman confronted Bush and demanded that he account for the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEATHS IN IRAQ!  She said:  "Just today THE LORD has revealed to me that the TRUTH WILL BE SEEN!"

At that point, Bush starts bleeding profusely from his mouth and eyes and ears and nose.  Blood cascades from his suit.  It's like the grand finale of the movie Carrie.  He staggers off stage, trailing tens of buckets of gore.

And of course, at that point the Secret Service goons run up and shoot the woman who asked the question.

(No, I'm not making this up.)

Perhaps a measure of the turning tide, this report is being talked about on the Today Show as I read this. Of course the closing statement in the report was something about the timing of the release of the report being "political."

Doesn't information itself have a liberal bias? Steven Colbert

According to the reports, the methodology is the same as that used to estimate mortality in Somalia, Sudan, the Balkans, and other wars/ethnic cleansings. It is certainly more credible than anything that comes out of the Regime.

As others have said, even if the numbers were off by half (and there's no reason to think they are), the findings are heartbreaking. I don't know how America will ever regain any friendshp or credibility in the world unless the liars and profiteers who committed this crime are tried and punished as the war criminals that they are.

For perspective, the study says 2.5 percent of the population has died as a result of the US occupation. That would amount to around 7 million people in the US. If you want to get an idea of how Iraqis, Muslims, and the rest of the world feel about the US, think about how Americans would react if a foreign invader killed 7 million of us for no reason except domestic politics and the enrichment of its ruling class. Really. Think about what that would be like.

PS. Boo, is it possible that you really believe that "America is, at least formerly, trying to protect them"? Sometimes I don't understand you at all.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

So, how high is the Bush Administration's "pyramid of skulls"? According to my quick and dirty calculations, it would be taller than the White House, or could fill every floor of that building to a depth of 2.5 meters.

Don't forget to count the 300,000 to 500,000 children which died as the result of US sanctions and bombing of water treatment facilities in Iraq prior to the invasion.

See: UNICEF 1999 Iraq Child and Maternal Mortality Surveys:
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/08/990812-unicef.htm

and Dr Richard Garfield's
Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi Children
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/garfield/dr-garfield.html