"main circulator of the casualty lists"? huh? are you saying we should just ignore the deaths of our brothers, sisters, neighbors, colleagues and friends in iraq? should we have no word of them, those who fight and die in our name? you should print out their pictures and hang them in a place of honor, rather than wish you'd never heard of them. personally, i'm glad to have word from the battlefront. the least we can do for our servicemembers who blood soaks the iraqi sands is to hear of their sacrifice.
Liberal straw man argument. The AP didn't publish the pictures to honor the fallen soldiers. They selectively featured those who died in Iraq but not Afghanistan to make a cheap political point. And you evidently agree with their lowdown tactics.
If the AP was interested in detailed accuracy, in every story in their drumbeat about American "deaths" in Iraq, they would break the list down into KIA, accidental deaths, death from illness, suicide, etc. Rather, they intentionally lump them together in order to inflate the casualty list to promote their anti-war agenda.
It's just not the casualty lists either. The AP is indistiguishable from Al Jazeera when it comes to publishing and sensationalizing the bad news only. There is a historic achievement being accomplished in Iraq and the AP -- and their readers -- are missing it first hand. 90% of the people there (or more) are moving toward democracy. They are openly fed up with the outside agitators. Both Sunni and Shiite clerics have condemned the kidnappings and beheadings. The Shiites have slapped down their own fringe bad actor al Sadr. On top of this, all sides are leaning toward a secular rather than religious government. But is the AP letting their American readers know about these historic developments, when much of their daily space is devoted to fixation over deaths that equal about 4 days worth of domestic traffic accidents? Where's the balance? Where's the context?