[John Lenin]

At first I thought the embedded reporters was a bad idea but now realize why they were there. The New York Times would have made Baghdad Bob look honest.

[Support Free Republic]

A Strong Kick To The Finish! (Leave The Left Behind)
	Finish Strong. Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Mister Magoo]

The vast majority of the media coverage was abysmal. Most of the commentators knew nothing of military tactics or history, and had no sense of perspective. It was incredible to hear reports of doom and gloom when the US forces hadn't lost a battle. If, for example, US forces gor ambushed, suffering 1,000 casualties at a particular battle, that might have been room to question our judgment. But that never happened. Anyone with any remote understanding of the two forces knew the result was preordained. Static troops in open, desert surrounding with no air cover will simply get massacred. And that's exactly what happened. If there is anything the US Army excels at, it is armoured, maneuver warfare in open terrain, where air power and mobility can be fully applied. The vast majority of the media naysayers are flat-out morons who have no business covering a war and have little comprehension of what is happening.

[thatdewd]

BTTT.