Skip to comments.
CNN TAKES HEAT FOR PACKING HEAT
New York Post ^
| 5/03/03
| Post Wire Services
Posted on 05/03/2003 12:54:52 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:13:38 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
May 3, 2003 -- BRUSSELS, Belgium - CNN took some flak from fellow journalists yesterday for having armed security guards protect a correspondent heading into Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit last month.
The controversy erupted when CNN International's President Chris Cramer - speaking at the launch of an organization to promote journalists' safety - said the media sometimes needed armed protection.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: armedguard; brentsadler; iraqifreedom; tikrit
1
posted on
05/03/2003 12:54:52 AM PDT
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
Not only did Sadler's Gunsels return fire, but anyone who watches the entire incident from beginning to end will find that CNN FIRED FIRST.
You can hear gunfire on the tape...
Anderson, the anchor in the US Asks Sadler if they were being
fired on, and in reply
Sadler clearly says to Anderson, no that was (gunslingers name) fireing on that group of men, he didn't like the looks of them - they looked threatening... (or words to that effect).
I rewound my tape and listened to it again becuase I couldn't believe my ears....!
2
posted on
05/03/2003 1:38:36 AM PDT
by
konaice
To: kattracks
What's the problem? Why can't a journalist protect him/her self?
3
posted on
05/03/2003 3:34:49 AM PDT
by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along.)
To: Rodney King
The problem the liberal media have with this is, if CNN openly sees the need for armed protection when going into dangerous areas in Iraq, how can they then turn around and say "you little citizens don't need guns to protect yourself -- the 2nd Amendment is obsolete, etc"
4
posted on
05/03/2003 3:39:08 AM PDT
by
SauronOfMordor
(Heavily armed, easily bored, and off my medication)
To: kattracks
Whew glory! Do we really mean that their name alone won't protect them all over the globe? For all the currying they do, it should.
5
posted on
05/03/2003 3:41:24 AM PDT
by
Spirited
To: SauronOfMordor
The problem the liberal media have with this is, if CNN openly sees the need for armed protection when going into dangerous areas in Iraq, how can they then turn around and say "you little citizens don't need guns to protect yourself -- the 2nd Amendment is obsolete, etc"Precisely. The need for self protection, and the efficacy of being armed to provide it, trumps all of the statists silly arguments about "guns are bad".
6
posted on
05/03/2003 5:23:39 AM PDT
by
marktwain
To: kattracks
Once again,The LiboCrite Grabbers have shot themselves in the foot with their collectively BLATANT HYPOCRISY!!They need firearms(or hired gunsels;see Rosie O'Dumbell),but the rest of us don't have the right of self-defense!!!!!!
To: SauronOfMordor
OK, fair enough. I just am surprised there is such an uproar over this.
8
posted on
05/03/2003 10:27:16 AM PDT
by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along.)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson