[Austin Willard Wright]

More attempts by supportors of the war to trivialize the deaths of our brave fighting men and women....all to score political points. Sickening.

[Austin Willard Wright]

That's supporters.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Why does not the New York Times headline, each morning, “Man Killed In Car Accident In Iowa”? Presumably because such a death, while undoubtedly tragic for the man’s family, has no broader significance. But why is that so different from the death of a single soldier in Iraq, which has no strategic significance whatsoever? One could argue that every highway fatality is newsworthy because it casts doubt on the success of America’s effort to promote highway safety. But our newspapers have no interest in promoting such a theory

. . . whereas journalism wants "another Vietnam" so bad it can taste it.

Saddam wants the same thing. That doesn't mean that journalists are pro-Saddam.

Democratic politicians want "another Vietnam" so bad they can taste it, too--but that doesn't mean that they love Saddam.

In both cases it is in the interest of their own professional advancement. So much so that they cannot truely hate the man. The journalists and the other Democrats give not a fig for his victims, only for their own advancement.

[Texagirl4W]

I am so glad to see this. I had been thinking of a way to get these stats, thinking the press was overplaying this. Thanks for the post.

[livius]

What I would like to see are little biographies of our military people who have died.

There are so few of deaths, relatively speaking, that I'm sure even the major newspapers could spare a few lines to tell us who they were, where they came from, their high schools and careers, and who they left behind.

Now that would be coverage worth reading.

[veronica]

BTTT.