Media - Going for the Defeat Angle
The media pounced on the report of the 2000th dead U.S. soldier in Iraq. Here's MSNBC's posting, noting a "Grim Milestone", and a whisper of the approval of the Iraqi Constitution is mentioned, for "balance" of course. CNN is kind enough to note that the election was also a milestone, presuming that a round number of 2000 dead in 2 1/2 years is measurement of anything. For the Washington Post, it topped the Constitution as well. And as for the New York Times, they are either under new management in the past hour, seeing the number for the story it isn't, or they've been scooped. No posting at all.
That the media keyed in on this number should surprise nobody, and it is equally predictable that they will create another non-sequitur of an issue when the number of dead reaches over 3000 that the number of U.S. soldiers dead in Iraq has exceeded the number of perople who died on 9/11. Which means that the war has failed some media-contrived cost-benefit analysis which states that you can only lose so many people in a war as you lost in the initial strike that started it.
And by that reckoning, World War II was a waste. 2,403 people died at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. In the following four years, 291,557 Americans died across the world fighting the Axis.
Nobody died at Fort Sumpter when the Confederates attacked it (except a horse), but the ensuing war saw 618,000 Americans die.
So spare me the tally. No war is pleasant, nor are there any guarantees of light casualties. But war is a needed thing if freedom is challenged. If we cut and run as the media-left suggest we do, war will still happen, but it will end much quicker, and it will be concluded on our shores.
The media-left would do well to stop advocating for the dead whose sacrifice they do not honor.