Not to split hairs but the total on the Iraq coalition casualty page ( http://www.icasualties.org/oif/ ) as of 4 dec. 06 is 2907.
My point being earlier that we have absorbed almost the same amount of casulaties over 5 years as we did in one day and the outrage is over the military ones, they ignore the civilian death toll because it reflects negatively on them.
So the administration should be more foreful in putting the casulaiteis in perspective.
And the fact of the matter is that casualties are much higher since 9/11 than on 9/11. You are only talking about deaths. We have almost 23,000 wounded, many of them very severely. They should not be ignored when the costs of the war are tallied. And the official numbers do not include military contractors or other civilian personnel in theater. Some figures suggest as many as 500 contractor personnel have died in Iraq.
No one - and you can't point to anyone - is 'ignoring' the deaths on 9/11. It isn't an equivalency game. The issue isn't whether the costs of the war are equal to the costs of that attack. The issue is whether the costs of the war are an appropriate price to pay for the benefit realized.
forget the numbers game.
had we fought "total war" in iraq and had 5000 KIA in a 6 month blitz that pacified the country - 60% of americans would have supported it. the lesson of vietnam we didn't learn in this war - is that when americans don't perceive that you are on a path to victory, when it appears to be a stalemate with the slow bleed of monthly casualties, seemingly with no endgame - that's when they turn negative on the war.
and add the MSM and the Dems to that - who have a vested interest in seeing the country and this president fail - Bush simply "played the clock" for too long. americans can't tolerate a speech every 6 months, where we are told we need "just another 12 months" for iraqi forces to take over.