Quote:
Originally Posted by brokensickle
Like Geraldo Rivera giving the where abouts/coordinates of the division he was with. You mean that one.
Or the embedded reporters that find anything bad and write home about it even if it's a total fabrication.
The one that saw Lt. Pantano doing his job and reported it as an abuse.
The problem is that to many of the embeds have an agenda which is not including victory and more resembles treason IMHO.
Ivan
|
Ivan,
1. Geraldo is the rare exception. While it doesn't excuse his actions, what were the net results of his actions? To my knowledge, it resulted in no casualties.
2. There was no embedded reported in LT Pantano's case. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if there were, that the case would have never even made it to the point of requiring an Article 32 hearing. The investigation began because of a disgruntled squad leader (IIRC, LT Pantano had or was just about ready to relieve the squad leader).
You've got to come up with more than just one weak example of someone who cares for the troops but was too much of a blowhard to think through the potential consequences of his actions.
I'd ask you to read the following pieces found in the liberal rag
The Wall Street Journal and by liberal mouthpieces such as Michael Yon and Max Boot and then comment specifically to their stories/opeds. I think you'll find that what the military needs is not fewer, but more embeds if we want to impact America's opinion.
The Wall Street Journal Online - OpinionJournal Federation
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/ind...007&Itemid=108
The Military's Media Problem