Not so fast there, skippy, I've got a few issues regarding the things your expert, Michael Spagat was saying.
In your first link, he say's a whole lotta nothing!
Spagat report from your link:
We compare three ORB polls and find important irregularities in ORB's mortality data in four central governorates of Iraq that account for more than 80% of the estimated deaths. These internal validity checks indicate that the ORB mortality data are not credible and would suggest a much lower estimate than ORB has published. We also analyze a number of specific error sources in the poll. Systematic errors, which include non-coverage and measurement errors, mostly point toward overestimation. Variable errors are also substantial but they are difficult to quantify in part due to incomplete disclosure of methodological details by ORB. External validity checks, including comparisons with two much larger and higher quality surveys, reinforce the conclusion that ORB has overestimated the number killed in Iraq by a wide margin.
He uses a lot of terms, but doesn't go into detail about what they specifically are and how it is relevent to the survey.
What "three ORB polls"?
What's a "governorate"?
What does a "internal validity check" involve?
What "specific error sources"?
What is a "systematic error?
What is a "variable error"?
What is a "methodological detail"?
He doesn't define what these terms are or be specific about their relevence.
As far as an "external validity check", another report of equal size from a very prestigious medical journal (Lancet), has similar numbers and is specific about how the survey was conducted.
Lancet report:
47 sites throughout the country were selected, each containing between 1849 households and 12,801 household members. Each household was asked about births, deaths, in-migration and out-migration between May and June 2006. When a death had occurred in a household death certificates were produced 92% of the times. The researchers did not ask household members whether the dead household members were civilians or combatants.
Of the 629 deaths reported, 87% (547) of them had happened after the invasion. This compared to 13% (82) before the invasion. The researchers concluded that the mortality rate before the invasion was 5.5 per 1000 people annually, compared to 13.3 per 1000 people after the invasion.
In your second link, but still with the same source Spagat, again he talks in double-speak with undefined terms...
Spagat report from your link:
An internal validity check of ORB data across three separate polls reveals internal contradictions indicative of compromised data collection practices which greatly exaggerate the resulting estimate (section 4 of the paper). In particular, four governorates in central Iraq account for more than 80% of ORB’s estimated one million deaths. Yet in these governorates a higher percentage of respondents report deaths of household members than report deaths of extended family members in another ORB poll conducted only six months earlier. This pattern can not be seen as credible since extended family networks are far larger than households.
WTF is he saying here?
What is an "extended family member"?
And your other guy, Josh Dougherty, has a conflict of interest regarding his comments, because he's tied to the Iraq Body Count which is tied to the Iraqi government, which has a definate interest in keeping the death count as low as possible. The IBC is about 10% of the total deaths.
ORB and Lancet are both very credible organizations with no political affiliations whatsoever. They have no reason to lie and Lancet, in particular, is considered an expert in the field of epidimeology.