While 4000 casualties over a five year period makes for a good lead for MSNBC, and I will give them this, they are factually accurate, it might be helpful to put those numbers into the context of other military operations over the history of the country.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/sizing-up-sacrifice-iraq-versus-major.html#links

As a veteran, and someone raised in a family with a military tradition, I know very well that every one of these deaths is a tragedy, and I do not wish to make light of them, but the reality of the situation is that the US military is killing a lot of "foreign fighters" and a lot of insurgents.

Here are a couple of sites maintained by some embedded bloggers...they have both been critical in the past of how both the Afghanistan and Iraqi operations have been handled, but both have seen vast improvements on the ground.

http://michaeltotten.com/

http://67.192.120.151/index.php

(michael Yon's site, DNS is acting funky)

Many MANY aspects of Iraq have been handled very badly. But we are there now, and not only would pulling the troops result in a bloodbath in Iraq, it would re-enforce Al Qaida's claims about US weakness, and tell all those countries, whatever you do, don't cooperate with the US, they'll burn you and leave you to die. Whatever you do, don't try to advance towards a permissive, democratic society, because if you know what's good for you, a theocratic dictatorship is the way to go.

Oh, and just as an aside, do you think the link below would have happened if the US and its allies had NOT gone into Iraq?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/19/world/main589638.shtml

You use the same argument everytime I bring up the number of slaughtered American soldiers, yet you're comparing Apples to Oranges. In comparison with other wars, or many battles even, this campaign has very little domestic bloodshed, but the fact is that technology has been keeping our troops safer and making their attacks more lethal. This isn't my problem with it. My point is that they shouldn't have been in there IN THE FIRST PLACE.

It's 4000+ lives that were wasted for a useless cause. Saddam Hussein was not a threat to us. He was not a threat to Israel. He was not a threat to Kuwait anymore. He was not harboring terrorists and he had NOTHING to do with 9/11. We went into Iraq because we were in the neighborhood.

And an answer to the last link and question you posted....yes.

The Democrats don't get a free pass on Iraq - they were complicit in the invasion and have been impotent in getting our troops out since they took over congress .. that is he rhetoric that got them in power - right?

Voting for a Democrat in November may get the troops bck home - if you believe the rhetoric. :)

A simple majority does nothing for congressional democrats. With Bush/Cheney in the White House, they are literally stalemated because they cannot get a supermajority they need to actually do what they promised.

I do agree, however, that a lot of Democrats are complicit in the invasion, and they should be held accountable for that.