7/14/2003 10:38:00 AM
by The MinuteMan
From my dictionary
, I get this definition: Massive slaughter, as in war; a massacre.
From Adam Nagourney of the NY Times
, I get this:
Democratic presidential candidates offered a near-unified assault today on President Bush's credibility in his handling of the Iraq war, signaling a shift in the political winds by aggressively invoking arguments most had shunned since the fall of Baghdad.
...The shift in the debate from the Democratic side reflected a sudden confluence of events: the administration's admission of error regarding the State of the Union speech, the continuing carnage in Iraq and the failure of the United States to find the weapons that it used as a justification for invading Iraq.
OK, people aren't happy with the developments in Iraq, based on this poll
. However, I also see that "At least 32 US soldiers have been killed in guerrilla attacks in Iraq since May 1, when the United States declared an end to major combat operations."
Which is 32 soldiers too many, but is it carnage? And I don't believe I have missed a headline about huge casualties amongst the Iraqi civilian population, either.
Get a thesarus, Mr. Nagourney. Off the top of my head, I would suggest dropping "carnage" and substituting "combat", "difficulties", or "killing".