Replies

Good for the soldier! This was/is a battle zone and very important intel work is being done! If Rummy had wanted coverage by reporters, a pool would have been arranged!

Right gramps, that's why Amearicans go to war, to support our ability to be told the truth by the government, not by some pesky reporter who might not get "the facts" right.

Struck said he asked the soldiers' leader what would happen if he ignored their warnings and continued to the missile strike site. That's when the soldier said the reporter would be shot, Struck said.

The reporter was reporting. The soldier was soldiering.

The reported reported that the soldier was, in fact, soldiering. What's the problem?

BTW I've got a press pass, I'm going to barge in and take pictures of you on the toilet.

Don't know if you've noticed or not,but,a President probably-if they held true to form-less than 20% of the media voted for continues to enjoy support from 85% of the American people,the war on terror is going well,the Enron bs hasn't stuck and they are trying very hard to become relevant again while knocking the President off his current pedestal.Please take what they say with a grain of salt.

You are right! There is NO reason we need to know what happened there. If the military tells us what we need to know, that's good enough for me, and it should be good enough for any True American! No need for reporters to be in over there at all, they should stick to reporting cats in trees in their hometowns.

Rather silly strawman you built there. Reporters don't have the right to blunder around in the middle of combat operations. And saying that, as I have, doesn't mean that I'm urging some sort of stupidities as you attempt to put in my mouth.

Try to do better.

I see your thinly veiled sarcasm. There are several good reasons for not allowing the reporter to visit the site:

1.)Danger to the reporter, and danger to others because of the reporter's presence. This would include the possibility of the reporter setting off unexploded ordinance and/or drawing fire from rogue Taliban elements lurking in the area.

2.)Custody of evidence in situations like this is of prime importance, especially if we did get bin Laden. The presence of a reporter clomping around and spreading DNA all over the place is not conducive to good evidence gathering.

3.) Reporters are notoriously looking for sensationalism, and we do not need pictures of body parts sent all over the world, stirring up the Arab street.

4.) It is quite possible that classified equipment was being used, either in the evidence gathering or in the original strike, and the reporter's presence would compromise security.

These are four logical and reasonable reasons for why I think the military was correct.

An added emotional reason, based on nothing but gut instinct, is that I would trust the lowliest potato peeling private in our Army far more than some hot-shot Washington Post reporter.

Right gramps, that's why Amearicans go to war, to support our ability to be told the truth by the government, not by some pesky reporter who might not get "the facts" right.

Neither the government nor reporters have established their credibility to report the "facts" right.

Right gramps, that's why Amearicans go to war, to support our ability to be told the truth by the government, not by some pesky reporter who might not get "the facts" right.

I don't see reporters getting the facts right the majority of the time, even in their own homeland. WE don't need their crap at a time like this. Sorry - news reporters have lost all their credibility.