Wasted

I've just read a few posts (e.g. here, here, here) about the double-standard being applied regarding the use of the term "wasted" to describe the deaths of American soldiers & marines in Iraq. While Obama was excoriated by the MSM, St. John McCain is getting a free pass. Both immediately apologized but, leaving aside the double-standard complaint (nothing new there, after all), what's wrong with using "wasted" when discussing those deaths (and those of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis)?

How were they not wasted? (unprofitably used, made, or expended) What has resulted from this invasion /occupation was so good that it would make such death and suffering seem worthwhile? What's wrong with telling the truth? This is absurd in the same way that those who lie to send troops into battle are supporting the troops and those who want to bring them home are not. Starting a war, invading and occupying another country are war crimes. Not only was it wrong, but it made the world less safe. How could a life lost in a doing something so wrong not be seen as wasted?

UPDATE: Arthur Silber gets it too.

The truth is infinitely worse than that these lives have been "wasted": these deaths have served to strengthen our enemies and weaken our own country in countless ways that our actual enemies could never have achieved on their own. That these lives have been "wasted" is the best one can say, not the worst. They are the greatest boon our enemies could dream of. These lives have not been "wasted": they are the precious tribute laid at the feet of our enemies, by our own leaders in the pursuit of indefensible and criminal aims.