Now this IS liberal bias...talk about "lies, damn lies, and statistics..."

First, let's start with the premise. The time periods being compared are artifically divided four-month periods...By what legitimate means does the writer presume that two four-month periods are the most illustrative? Why not 8 1-month periods, 4 2-month periods, or any other combination? Wouldn't the logical choice be "pre-capture of Saddam" and "post-capture of Saddam"? Or how about "pre-crackdown" and "post-crackdown"? How about a hundred other legitimate dividing lines? Because that would disprove the whole point of this editorial masquerading as news...

Second, this flat-out false sentence:

"Nor have casualties tapered off since the capture of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein on Dec. 13."

That's a flat-out lie...no excuse for it...In the month of November, we lost over 70 troops...Since we captured Saddam, 12...Do the math...

Third, they cite a single retired military man as the "authority" to comment on the casualties on the ground. Is there even a comment from someone who might not agree with the author's premise? How about we at least attempt get a statement from the Pentagon on the topic? Since when do retired military men have more insight than the ones who are actually on the ground?

Fourth, a false comparison of polling data. He compares polling data from a time period barely into the beginning of military operations when we had yet to suffer any significant casualties to a period nine months later....How about comparing the polling data from when the end of major combat operations was declared? How about before we captured Saddam? Again, because that might disprove the point you were trying to make...

I could go on, but this is getting tedious...Vernon Loeb, go back to Journalism 101...When a job on the editorial board opens up, we'll post the position in the lunch room. Until then, try to stick to reporting the news instead of interpreting it...Your bias is showing...