The covering & reporting of this war leaves a hell of a lot to be disired. Peter said the same (whoopiee dou) thing that a fair amount of Ret. Generals, military analysts, military historians, tacticians
& a host of others are saying, over the air. "We screwed up" or we shouldn't be there or we went about the whole thing ass backwards, duh, thanks up the news bulletin. Damn, if I could get paid to ponder & guess the reasons of how & why & have my head so far up my ass that I couldn't see the day for the night nor the trees for the forest as much as what I'm hearing from the Gulf I'd be right on the money & on par with the weather reporters, funny how that profession gets paid for so little that is useful, there ought to be a law ('I guess' once there was). There are reports that Franks got refused by his boss, for what he consideded he needed, then there's the spin that says just the oppisite. There is an incredible amount of speculation as to why we hit this or what was that burning some even answer their own questions & others give an answer & in the same sentence state "but this is just a guess". Shit what kind of reporting is this? Then there's the host of other international reporters saying that what the US is getting & what the rest of the nations are reporting are worlds apart. No matter what angle or side or view you see this war from the coverage of it sucks. I watched a few stations last night & there's was a lot of coverage on support the troops rallys while the same stations reported not a thing about the many anti-war rallys. I consider this kind of reporting base & not even worthy of the National Inquire's reports of "alien gives birth to Jesus's mother" or some other 'laugh a lot headline'. The only true news we'll get, IMHO, are from the flies on the wall & they'll all be dead by the time we're ready to listen. Barry