"For three years you've been reporting on the casualties as pseudo-TV fiction characters, with your disingenuous false pity for the families. How's it feel now that two of your own will probably be turnips for the rest of their lives? Are you now going to take a realistic look at the waste of lives in the Chimp's folly? I hope so, and I hope you start giving the American people the truth about all we've lost in that dry hole in the sand."
However, it seems they expected me to be delicate. In the next sentence:
Making the same observation, but a bit more delicately, Iggert wonders if this "might just be a way of bringing Iraq a little closer to the backyards of those who don't or have not been able to relate to the war?"
I ain't cute, I ain't pretty, and I sure as Hell ain't delicate.
Shakes not only says it more delicately but better too. Is this link love or what?
I feel terrible about Woodruff and Vogt - and I feel terrible every single time I read a headline about more troops getting killed or injured, not to mention more Iraqi civilians getting killed or injured. And I get angry when I watch a news anchor blithely reports those deaths or injuries - "Twelve marines died today when a roadside bomb exploded..." - and then segue without irony into a report about President Bush or one of his minions giving a speech on how well the war is going or how we've turned a new corner or how Cindy Sheehan is nothing more than a publicity whore. I don't want to celebrate that this horrific spell of cognitive dissonance might have finally been broken by a tragedy, but, at the same time, I do hope that makes a few people reconsider the ways they've aided and abetted an administration and its war of choice that has caused so many unnecessary deaths.