During the administration of G.W. Bush I recall seeing every day on the front page of newspapers and home pages on the internet the day's tally of U.S. soldiers who had been killed in Iraq along with the total so far to date.

OK, now the USA has moved on to Afghanistan under the leadership of Barak Obama and these figures are buried and/or given little significance in the papers or online. But the death toll is climbing ever so slowly just like in Iraq.

The argument in Iraq was that those brave young soldiers deserved recognition so I guess now soldiers dying in Afghanistan aren't as deserving.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

No, it's more like news bias. Anything to tear down a Republican, anything to help a Democrat. Our military always deserves far more than we give them but when politics is involved, they often suffer both in funding and recognition.

---

Bias is in the eye of the beholder.

Get a lefty and a righty watching the same news story and both will claim it was biased against their point of view.

Did you ever consider that the companies that run the media are involved with the companies that are making all the money from this war. If the casualty figures were published, public pressure could force a withdrawal from Afghanistan and their profits would drop.

It's a point to consider.

T.A.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the largest media organisation is News Limited and one could hardly accuse them of being left wing. Yet they don't publish the casualty figures either. Funnily enough the only US news broadcaster that I saw seriously recognise the fallen was that bastion of the far right, PBS.

Bias is in the eye of the beholder.

Get a lefty and a righty watching the same news story and both will claim it was biased against their point of view.

Did you ever consider that the companies that run the media are involved with the companies that are making all the money from this war. If the casualty figures were published, public pressure could force a withdrawal from Afghanistan and their profits would drop.

It's a point to consider.

T.A.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the largest media organisation is News Limited and one could hardly accuse them of being left wing. Yet they don't publish the casualty figures either. Funnily enough the only US news broadcaster that I saw seriously recognise the fallen was that bastion of the far right, PBS.

But your explanation doesn't jive with the reporting that went on for eight years while GW was President

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

But your explanation doesn't jive with the reporting that went on for eight years while GW was President

But for those eight years no-one was aware the economy was going to hell in a handbasket. Domestically its a whole different ball game now.

T.A.

Umm here's an article for you
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/national/fallen/

I think the interesting stats are the dramatic decrease in deaths starting in 2008. Not exactly sure what happened, new equipment, change of tactics or some unknown factor(no sarcasm here) that cut US deaths in 1/2 from 2007 to 2008 and the death rate has been steady at just over 1 a day for the last 3 years. I think this is a dramatic change from previous years and also why we just don't see that much on casualties because there are just that many fewer to report

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

But Bob, you have the absolutely unbiased 4th estate reporting of Fox News, the Washington Times, National Review and Commentary -- surely the pure truth will out.....