You've Got to be Kidding

No, really... the AP is seriously asking this?

Why So Many Upset by Iraq Death Toll?

PHILADELPHIA The country largely kept the faith during World War II, even as about 400,000 U.S. forces died - 20,000 just in the month long Battle of the Bulge. Before turning against the wars in Korea and Vietnam, Americans tolerated thousands more deaths than in Iraq.

Has something changed? Do Americans somehow place higher value on the lives of their soldiers now? Do they expect success at lower cost? Or do most simply dismiss this particular war as the wrong one - hard to understand and harder to win - and so not worth the losses?

Well, here's a few off the top of my head:

Maybe because the war was based on a goddamn lie?

Maybe because we were told the war would be a cakewalk?

Maybe because people realize there is no benefit to this war, to Iraqis or Americans, and our soldiers are dying pointlessly?

Maybe because the "mission" was supposedly "accomplished" three years ago?

Maybe because people finally realize this war has nothing to do with "fighting terrorism," and is, in fact, creating more terrorists?

And here's a big one:

Maybe because Americans are finally realizing that the "President" that began this war hasn't lost a single night's sleep over any life lost in his little adventure. The "President" and his administration are more concerned with their image and "legacy" than American lives. They care about the Iraq death toll because their "President" doesn't.

Human beings are not action figures, and they're getting goddamn sick and tired of being treated that way.

That's why people are upset about the Iraq death toll.

Regardless of what Tony Snow might think, it's not "just a number." 3,000 dead for no reason is 3,000 too many.