PatsRI

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051231/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

The death toll is 5 short of last year and since the announcements are always a few days behind it could equal last year. The US has a job to do in Iraq and it has to be finished but could we stop hearing from this administration what how everything is getting better. They have had elections and thier security force is increasing in numbers if not effectiveness but in the end if the same amount of our guys are getting killed every year then it wouldn't seem a positive step to me. In my mind how well that country is doing depends upon how safe it is. The same article talks about how over 30 Iraquis were killed by "terrorist" actions yesterday too.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

DarrylS

The way they count is somewhat deceptive as the only statistics have to do with "battlefield deaths", while they do not count the number of soldiers who die off site and as a result of injuries. I know the medical technology has improved significantly, however the overall numbers are suspect and lower than the actuality. I am surprised the sidestreet media; ABC, NBC, NYT, WAPO etc have never followed this up. I wonder if it would make a difference if the overall numbers were 50% higher than what is reported???

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

All_Around_Brown

The media has been complicit and detached since day one. You are surprised??

They have shown they are, in general, attached to the hip to the corporate interest. If something benefits the corporation, they report it. Otherwise, they report on some woman missing in Des Moines as national news.

NYT is losing popularity after the discovery that Judith Miller was planting propaganda in it, direct from traitor Chalabi. They went one step further and did not disclose the illegal wiretapping scandal when it first came to their attention in 2004. They could have seriously affected an election had they done that, and they wouldn't want to inform the public about too much. That would imply an open government.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.