Add to Technorati Favorites

Monday, October 30, 2006

Outrage

I wonder, will the death toll of soldiers in Iraq get banner headlines (as it did when it reached 1,000 and 2,000) when it surpasses the death toll of 9/11?

I was surprised I hadn't heard anything when it went past 2,752, which I thought was the 9/11 count (and I did see that number on Wikipedia, but now I can't find it). I was looking for that link and instead came up with another page which lists the death toll at 2,997. Currently, the death toll of soldiers in Iraq is 2,813 according to the War Room. Perhaps that is why it wasn't splashed all over CNN. (It certainly wasn't because they suddenly developed taste.)

Here's the thing: milestones of any sort give us a chance to stop the day-to-day and reflect. I've complained again and again that reflection has been sorely lacking in this administration (and when the other side tries, they are accused of whining). I agree with many conservative pundits who said that touting the number 2,000 was sort of silly, since the 1999th soldier was just as important as the 2000th. But if we're not going to reflect on it from soldiers 1-1999, then by all means, let's stop and think a second at 2,000.

But kiddos, you'd better stand up and scream when the toll reaches 2,997 or whatever number you find more reliable. Not because he or she was more important than the 2996th, but because that will mean

THAT GEORGE W. BUSH AND DONALD RUMSFELD HAVE KILLED MORE U.S. CITIZENS THAN THE TERRORISTS DID ON 9/11.

And if that doesn't make you quake in your boots, then for goodness' sake, don't vote next Tuesday.

UPDATE: 02/2007 Well, we're well over 3000 soldiers dead now and no one that I know of ever mentioned this idea that we've surpassed 9/11. I don't know what to make of that, I was sure the media would talk about it.

No comments: