Tipping point revisited

I've asked this question in the past, but at what point do the advocates of the war in Iraq begin touting and EMPHASIZING the civilian casualties there? For the past two years the left has been hyping and lying about the number of civilians killed as a result of the war. They relentlessly spout the ludicrous 100,000 number published in The Lancet. They never seem to grasp the simple concept that the United States military does whatever it can to AVOID killing civilians while our enemy openly targets them.

The Jihadis who are now targeting the civilians are probably not affected very much by how the press and other leftists who constantly blame the US for these deaths, but the former Hussein regime certainly was. Hussein knew how to use the press. He knew that high civilian casualties would help his side in the PR war. As a result he did everything he could to maximize the number of civilian deaths. What this means is the media's and anti-war fetish for hyping civilian casualties led to them being put in greater danger.

Greyhawk at The Mudville Gazette has a couple of really good pieces on this topic here and here. He alerted me to an article in Newsweek that does a lot to debunk the nonsense that the US is responsible for [insert outlandish moonbat number here] civilian deaths.

Back to my original question. At what point do we start to hear from the advocates for the war things like, "40 civilians were killed today in a car bombing in Mosul. Our enemy is killing innocents wholesale. THIS is why it's so important for us to win. Withdrawing beforehand would put the people intent on killing the civilians in charge of a nation."? Why don't we already hear more of this sort of thing?