Four more American soldiers killed...
But one American contractor who had been held hostage got away.
Congratulations to Thomas Hamill on his escape. But the NY Times has his escape as a major headline on their main web page, while the story about the soldiers being killed is a minor note. On CNN.com, they've got a huge picture of Hamill, which is their main story. The deaths of the soldiers isn't mentioned on the main page.
I don't know if this means that the media is still covering up for Dickie and Georgie's monstrous screwup, or if it has just gotten so bad that the deaths are routine, but survival is exceptional.
I also see that the NY Times, or at least their Reuters feed, has gone back to using the smaller "enemy action" number of U.S. KIA's, currently 545, as opposed to the total who have died (including accidents, friendly fire, etc.), which I believe is at about 750. The media routinely did this for the first eight or ten months of the war, but it seemed as though they had come around to using the more accurate higher number in recent months. It's worrying to see them return to their old ways. Not that I like seeing high casualty numbers, but it should be clear to anyone with a brain by now that the only possible good that can come from these deaths is that they are used as lessons to prevent many more deaths in the future. By underplaying the numbers of dead and wounded, the true cost of the whole pointless exercise is hidden, meaning it may take longer before public opinion becomes so overwhelming as to force President Bush or President Kerry to withdraw.
But one American contractor who had been held hostage got away.
Congratulations to Thomas Hamill on his escape. But the NY Times has his escape as a major headline on their main web page, while the story about the soldiers being killed is a minor note. On CNN.com, they've got a huge picture of Hamill, which is their main story. The deaths of the soldiers isn't mentioned on the main page.
I don't know if this means that the media is still covering up for Dickie and Georgie's monstrous screwup, or if it has just gotten so bad that the deaths are routine, but survival is exceptional.
I also see that the NY Times, or at least their Reuters feed, has gone back to using the smaller "enemy action" number of U.S. KIA's, currently 545, as opposed to the total who have died (including accidents, friendly fire, etc.), which I believe is at about 750. The media routinely did this for the first eight or ten months of the war, but it seemed as though they had come around to using the more accurate higher number in recent months. It's worrying to see them return to their old ways. Not that I like seeing high casualty numbers, but it should be clear to anyone with a brain by now that the only possible good that can come from these deaths is that they are used as lessons to prevent many more deaths in the future. By underplaying the numbers of dead and wounded, the true cost of the whole pointless exercise is hidden, meaning it may take longer before public opinion becomes so overwhelming as to force President Bush or President Kerry to withdraw.
<< Home