Very interesting idea. I have been thinking about that concept,
for todays public warfare. It seems that the press, media, or
whatever they want to call themselves really don't know the
nuts and bolts of real world operations. They run around
reporting the "implications" of events, not the actual events.
They feel they have to edit thenews before presenting it.
So, it would not be beyond reason to believe that our
government, during a time of war, let the media chase down
wild geese, while we really prosecuted the war.
Don't forget, the media may have been directly threatened
by terrorists, and therefore would not readily come out with
information that is severely detrimental to the terrorist
cause. That possibility, if you notice, is rarely, or never mentioned
by the media...I wonder why?
That is a pretty good theory, especially since we were hearing about Saddam and WMDs for years before President Bush was elected.