Replies

It was not friendly fire when the two reporters were killed. Our troops were being fired upon by snipers (at least that's the way I've heard it three our of four times). The reporters (God bless their souls) happened to be in the way.

This is a war. It's dangerous to be in Baghdad, and all the reporters that are not embedded with the troops are in danger.

Rick L on Fox just mentioned that they're seeing SUVs w/ "UN" marked on the side . . . but the UN has been gone for weeks . . . presumed stolen . . . I don't know what's scarier, UN trucks with UN people or with 'Raqis!

re. dead reporters.

Forgive my subtlety. My "friendly fire" analogy was to illustrate the absurb and exaggerated reports over loss of their own -- as opposed to losses of our fighters.

They "report" friendly fire incidents, yet burn our boys in effigy over killed journalists. If there was any consistency in their reports, they would have called or related this "friendly fire," or "collateral damage," i.e., firing upon the wrong target. If we took out a sniper, then it was a legitmate attack. All I hear from the media is that there "were no" snipers in the hotel or near the Al-J building. But they go no further: they attribute malign intentions, as opposed to other "friendly fire" incidents in which the loss of life is reported as regrettable.

Consistency would require that, without acceptance of the presence of snipers among them, they attribute these incidents to accidental or unintended causes. All I see is damnation. They suck.