So if CNN focuses the story on one escaped POW, they are "unbiased," but if they cut to a story on a recent one of the 800+ soldiers and contractors who weren't so lucky, they are biased?

I'm usually not a fan of CNN either, but it sounds in this case like they was doing the job of the free press: reporting both the good and the bad during the same hour of programming.

Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

Three of these states are ruled by fundamentalist Islamic parties (or monarchies or theocracies) with documented financial ties to terror, as well as photographed and documented terror camps within their borders.

The other is ruled by a CIA-trained madman with a secular-socialist agenda who engaged in under the table oil deals through the U.N. with France, Russia and Germany. This country, unlike the other four, had no ties with the 9-11 attacks or any terror attack in the last 40 years.

The one thing this country DOES have is a shared border with three states with state-sponsored terrorism.

I guess it was chosen for invasion for it's convinient "central location" which is nice.

I'd hate for the Islamic fundamentalists to have to drive more than six- or seven-hundred
miles to wage Jihad against our boys (and girls).

Frankly, using our enlisted men as bait to draw terrorists out of Saudi Arabia to fight (so as not to offend Crown Prince Abdullah) is getting a bit stale.

I thought it was a brilliant maneuver initially.

Liberating an oppressed people...creating a new ally in the Middle East against terror (ensuing insurgent attacks would likely rally the Iraqi's to defend their new freedom alongside G.I.'s)....fighting against three terrorist-sponsoring countries at once with our new Iraqi ally without so much as stepping foot in Saudi Arabia and interrupting our domestic oil flow.

Wolfowitz should be commended...it was a decent enough plan. The only way, in fact, to fight terror without creating gas lines.

But it didn't work, and now we are losing troops at an amazing clip because we want to play warfare against Saudi Terrorists within Crown Prince Abdullah's rules of engagement.

Well....either that or you can go with one of those silly "excuse" reasons why we chose Iraq.

Liberation?

Doubtful. There are wose than Saddam out there when it comes to human rights.

WMD?

Doubtful. Just about every leader in the Middle East claims weapons that they don't have. For Saddam to claim that he disarmed (and document it publicly) would be like walking through Cabrini Green shouting "I have lot's of money - I am unarmed!"

Countries in that region try to capture each other's oil wells for sport.

Face it, we did this because it was the only way we could fight terror in that region without creating a global economic depression via fuel shortage....

Oh well, a taxpayer funded mercenary was rescued and CNN didn't spend all night on it.

Commies.

Sorry JD,

From the start of the war I knew this was a "mousetrap" battle plan that was going to try and draw insurgents into Iraq from Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

It was the only way we could combat the terrorists in those countries without treading on their soil and creating an oil crisis. Well, with Saudi Arabia anyway...Iran has nukes, so there's a different reason we don't go in there.

Iraq, however, being the most secular nation in the Arabic world (at least among leadership) would be an easy target. Certainly none of their neighbors would aid them until the U.S. had taken out Saddam. After all, if Saddam was good at anything - it was irking his neighbors.

And when the insugents did come...surely the Iraqi people would fight arm-in-arm with our troops? Wouldn't they? Wouldn't those images of Sunni, Shiia, Kurd and America fighting together send a bold statement thorughout the Middle East?

I like to think I saw through the white house BS to the real reason we chose Iraq...

It seemed like a good plan too...for awhile we were offing foreign fighters at a pretty steady clip. Something has changed though...and I think things are taking a turn for the worse.

I think maybe we're the ones caught in the mousetrap...and I'm not sure there's a good way out anymore.

Richard: Reporting on a dead or injured soldier doesn't make cnn biased, but taking even good news and putting a backward spin on it is part of a pattern that is seen quite often in the media elite these days. Another good example of this (you can find more examples at: Oh, That Liberal Media blog) is when they say something like, "Jobless claims are down BUT there's anxiety that they'll go back up." and they'll interview someone who just lost their job.
It's not just the news, but also the selection of stories that spins it in the desired direction.
We lose soldiers every day! On a rare day that there's some good news we get a story from CNN saying in effect, "Something good happened today, BUT let's not forget about the bad stuff"
Unfortunately, fatalities in Iraq aren't earth shattering news - they can report that anytime - but a hostage escaping is big news all by itself. There's no need to bring in the other angle unless you want to remind people of something...
-jdm.

Unevenflow:
I never cease to be amazed at how much the Saudis get away with - from both political parties. They're no friends of ours but they sure like to pretend.
As far as Iraq is concerned - if we're really serious about stabilizing that country we need to control the borders. As long as syrians, iranians, etc. can sneak into the country and cause trouble the situation is going to continue to be dangerous.
I wouldn't say the policy in Iraq is a failure. It took us far longer to stabilize Germany and Japan after WWII. Nobody ever said this was going to be easy.
-jdm

At this point we're committed so I guess all there is to say is that time will tell. I will say that it seems like way too many of the battle decisions seem to be based more on politics than on eliminating the bad guys and that has me a little worried.
Like I said earlier, if you can't control the borders I don't see how they're going to be able to stabilize the country.