The tragedy is a direct result of the policy and stated policy aims and runs counter to the pollyannish pronouncements of the administration. If you come upon a car wreck because somebody ran a red light it's certainly fair to point out the cause of the wreck even if the red light runner claims he was on a really important errand and the damage isn't that big of a deal anyway.
What pollyannish claims are you talking about? Whoever said that the damage was that big a deal anyway? You have used a human tragedy to mock someone with whom you have political differences.
"We'll be welcomed with open arms," "We don't need more soldiers," etc. I've used preventable deaths to point out the folly of the thinking and the ridiculous assumptions that went into the decision to invade Iraq. It's you who are trying to shield the administration from legitimate criticism by waving the bloody shirt. Defend the policy if you can, but it's beneath contempt to take the tack you have. Argue the merits. That's the best thing we can do for the dead in a Democracy.
If we did an overwhelming analysis of everything that was said by the Bush Administration running up to the start of the war, do you think the "pollyannish" soundbites you keep bringing up or more reasonable asessments of the hard work and danger ahead would dominate? There's not much doubt in my mind what we would find, however you are satisfied with your "Daily Show" analysis of this particular news headline. I'd rather be beneath contempt than beyond it. Suit yourself. I just think it is offensive in the highest order. I'd rather offend you than to offend the memories of 9 dead soldiers. Carry on as you wish. "Safer. Winning. Hearts and Minds. Democracy coming."
