You have again turned the delivery of the message into a discussion of the motives of the messenger.

I see that, as the protests continued, you asserted that the perception of the motives of the messenger was, in fact, your real point. Kudos on the diversion from a diversion. You hunt with a shotgun: everyone is so busy picking pellets out of stuff that they don't notice you miss the target.

Several points:

No WMD? You tried that and no one cared.

Untrue. And more untrue the longer the search continues. [putting on patented Tech-1 Mindreading Hat] Maybe you're saying this to divert attention from the continuing, and more widely repeated, inquiries on this subject, yea, even beyond the valley of the shadow of the Zone.

You have to wake up and hope that every single day some more blood is spilled for you to smear in your posts here.

Check your patented Tech-1 Mindreading Hat. It has a short. Don's hopes are not within its range of interpretation. I grant you that life would be simpler for the Administration if people would stop noticing military deaths, though. If Administration supporters can spin deaths as "fewer than expected", that's considered patriotic.

Colorful metaphor. Echoes of lamb's blood smeared on the doorposts in Exodus. Nice job.

Yet here you see no problem exploiting other families suffering to score some persuasion points?

Now here we have a difference in interpretation on the nature of exploitation. Don isn't emailing families of the fallen or sending them flowers or anything like personal contact. (You aren't, are you, Don?) He certainly isn't posting the addresses of the families, or the dates and times of the funerals, or making other maudlin appeals to sentiment. He is repeating here, as a consolidated, continuing record, casualty reports that appear in the world press, with links to the original sources. These stories come from reports issued or confirmed by our very own Department of Defense. There's your leak. Go ahead and plug it.

Have our war dead been killed or not? Have the wounded been wounded or not? Is this a sign that all is not well in Iraqland or not? Will shutting up and pretending that everything is hunky-dory-OK-fine reduce the number of casualties or not? This is the issue surrounding the legitimate news stories of the casualties. Posters' personalities are not.

I look at casualty reports as individual tragedies that begin to contribute to a pattern. When I see an attack on the reports themselves as somehow repulsive and boring (an interesting juxtaposition of sentiments), it appears to me to be an attempt to vilify casualty reporting in general. And why? Because it will affect the re-electability of the current President, so it's better to brush off the casualties as much as possible. This behavior is not only callous, but cynical. It gives the expression "Unknown Soldier" a very different flavor: not unidentified, but ignored.