Toll of Bush's wars exceeds Sept. 11th

In every speech adminis-
tration spokes-
persons keep claiming there hasn't been an attack in this country since Sept. 11, 2001. But since we are bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq without a clear exit strategy, as many U.S. kids are dying (and countless more being maimed) in Bush's wars as were killed on Sept. 11th.

"The number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan has now exceeded the number of people killed in the Sept. 11 attacks. The U.S. has lost about two thousand seven hundred troops in Iraq and another two hundred eighty in Afghanistan. This surpasses the official death toll of 9/11 of two thousand nine hundred seventy three. Meanwhile the Iraqi death toll in just July and August was over sixty six hundred." (from Democracy Now).

My question is: as long as we keep sending our young people (our future) to be killed in the Big Muddy of Iraq and Afghanistan, why would terrorists need to invade the U.S.?

The neo-CON fantasy of a "new Middle East" resulting from U.S. armed intervention seems like an even greater fantasy given these new statistics.
This seems especially true now that we have confirmation that Bush's wars are increasing the threat of terrorism and not, as claimed by Republicans, decreasing it,
"The country’s intelligence agencies have concluded that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has increased the overall terrorist threat by spawning a new generation of Islamic radicalism." (also from DN)

After a week of successfully diverting attention from Iraq to the fight over torture, the Intelligence agencies report
focuses attention squarely back on Bush's war in Iraq.

Here's Greg Mitchell's comment on Bush's Sunday interview in which he said "Iraq will just be a comma."
"In an interview aired on CNN on Sunday, President Bush suggested that one day the conflict in Iraq will be looked back on as 'just a comma.' The dead, and their families, might propose different punctuation."