At least at the New York Times. Or if it was "fit to print," they buried it pretty well.

"US Military Deaths In Iraq Lowest In Fourteen Months."

Guess it doesn't fit the template. Or help the Defeatocrats.

[Update in the afternoon]

It's not just the military deaths that are dropping.

I should note, for anti-war loons. I don't actually put that much stock in these kinds of statistics, for reasons I mentioned in comments--they don't actually necessarily presage the future. I simply point them out to those who are so eager to leap on them when they think that they tell the false narrative that they want told.

[Update in mid afternoon]

For those who are into this kind of numerology, here is a lot more analysis by John Wixted.

That's great, it's like the hotel ad in Futurama: "Now with 33% fewer rats!"

It may be time to break out the champagne, but that darned MSM is going to find new ways to emphasize the negative. Starting in about two weeks, they will observe that there have been more US deaths in Iraq in 2007 than in any other year of the Iraq war.

Starting in about two weeks, they will observe that there have been more US deaths in Iraq in 2007 than in any other year of the Iraq war.

Yes, as though that were meaningful.

There were probably more deaths in 1944 than in any previous year of World War II. I guess that must have meant that we were losing.

Of course more deaths isn't meaningful. When fewer soldiers die in Iraq, it's a Defeatocrat-defying fact that the evil liberal media like the New York Times has to suppress with stories like "Drop in Violence in Iraq Reported" on their home page. But when more soldiers die in Iraq, it's completely meaningless.

And when the number of people who die in Iraq oscillates like a ping-pong game, let's not let that stop us from making confident conclusions based on a couple months' data. I'm pretty sure I can fit a Taylor series here if I squint hard enough.

sounds like Simberg wants to declare Victory again.

Why don't you trot out "Mission Accomplished"

after 4.5 years we are now at the point we were at
after 3 years. Wow. That's progress.

sounds like Simberg wants to declare Victory again.

No, sounds like Anonymous Moron doesn't know how to read again. Or yet.

Mr. Anonymous,

Would you care to tell your audience in what you actually believe?

More specifically, for what cause would you kill another human being?

Just wondering, because you write like an unaccomplished adolescent who doesn't get enough attention from his parents.

I guess roy doesn't understand that the MSM has, for years, been reporting arbitrary "milestones" in deaths as if there is some significance to the war about them. They built their strawmen and loudly trumpeted the destruction of them while any good news was dismissed and not reported.

MG

What do I believe?

I believe that the Iraq occupation is a termendous strategic blunder.

I believe that the bulk of the US Army is now stuck in a quagmire
that creates no good options for the american people, No good
options for the Iraqi's and lots of good ones for Iran, China and
Russia.

I believe the Dollar is down 50% from the Euro as a consequence
of failed policies of the administration.

I believe we have suffered 30,000 direct military casualties
and close to 100,000 PTSD casualties from the occupation.

I believe Osama Bin Laden is alive and laughing at
George Bush.

I believe the Army is close to the breaking point much
as the Army in 1969 was close to it's breaking point.

I believe Simberg believes this is victory.

Anonymous Moron: What do I believe?

[laughably ignorant beliefs snipped to save bandwidth]

In other words, you live in a delusional fantasy.

Mr. Anonymous,

For what cause would you kill another human being?

Mr. Anonymous,

For what cause would you kill another human being?

Let me guess. If they were insufficiently enthusiastic to kill George Bush, if they had him in their gun sites?

At least at the New York Times. Or if it was "fit to print," they buried it pretty well.

Actually, it's been on the top page of the site for most of the day. It is at the moment in the top half of the page, as one of nine stories that has a full-sentence summary. So it turns out that it isn't the New York Times that leaves out facts that don't "fit the template", it's actually this web site that's doing it.

But this story won't change anyone's mind. President Bush said in May, 2003 that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended". If, four years and four months later, "only" 66 Americans die in Iraq, that still proves him wrong. He is just somewhat less wrong this month than in any of the past 14 months.

Actually, it's been on the top page of the site for most of the day.

Ah, I see, Anonymous Coward. So if I (unpayed) don't stay on top of things 24/7, as the hundreds of staffers at the Gray Lady are payed to do, I'm guilty of media bias? Despite the fact that that I had and repeated the news before they could be bothered to?

So if I (unpayed) don't stay on top of things 24/7

Then you shouldn't make false claims. If you wanted to assert that the New York Times buried the story, you should have waited to see whether it was true.

If you think that they were somehow slow-footed on this, the truth is that it takes longer to do real research than it does to jerk your knee.

The story is here by the way, if you think that it is too difficult to find without pay.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/world/middleeast/02iraq.html

I'm guilty of media bias

Absolutely, in a dozen ways. But don't be too ashamed, because bias is only human. Especially if you habitually condemn bias in one particular direction, then you are more exposed than ever to the opposite bias.

if you habitually condemn bias in one particular direction
Posted by at October 1, 2007 07:09 PM

And you say this like your biases are somehow better and should be magically taken for their face value? Where do you get off thinking that you are excused for making baseless and idiotic opinions and remaining ever above reproach? If you have a point, which I doubt because you've been reduced to waxing poetic and making broad generalizations, then say you peace and move on. Otherwise, the way you are carrying yourself at the moment pretty much demonstrates that you are working for the enemy and dissident such as yours will not be tolerated.

Mr. Anonymous,

For what cause would you kill another human being?

This is a straightforward question, designed to identify your non-negotiable values. I am truly interested in your reply.