[Howlin]

Read what you are saying.

You are saying that ANY country in the entire world can obliterate ANY and ALL reporting their country by THREATENING a weasely reporter.

Never mind all the people who died during those 12 years because CNN towed the Iraqi line that they were not really bad people, that all the reports of torture were just lies by people mad at Hussein or bent on getting his oil.

Why is one lie different from another?

[The Old Hoosier]

You are saying that ANY country in the entire world can obliterate ANY and ALL reporting their country by THREATENING a weasely reporter.

Did you notice how Fox News didn't have a Baghdad correspondent at the beginning of the war?

[The Old Hoosier]

I may be misinterpreting. Here's one of the points we were arguing, and maybe you weren't referring specifically to it, in which case I just misunderstood.

I wrote: ...CNN probably should have left Baghdad in principle, but they could not have reported this story anyway, for fear of retribution against the camera man and his family.

Then you wrote: "Read what you are saying. You are saying that ANY country in the entire world can obliterate ANY and ALL reporting their country by THREATENING a weasely reporter..."

Then I wrote: Did you notice how Fox News didn't have a Baghdad correspondent at the beginning of the war?

Meaning, of course, that FOX was right not to deal with the regime or get any info from them at all, because of their inability to report such incidents--which I'm sure were not isolated at CNN.