Is the Reporter Now Wearing His Surge Protector?

Yes, I noted that little tag about his self-preserving interest. The story became important once he thought he would ride unarmored.

But if he's riding on a transport truck, not a humvee, they wouldn't ordinarily be armored anyway.

Hey guy, put a sandbag under your seat to protect those cajones that may be rather small on you anyway.

Sheesh, where do they find those journo tyros?

Posted by mark butterworth at December 10, 2004 9:59 PM

What made me wonder about this story is this: if he's been trying to "get the story out" for weeks, what was stopping him?

Has he written about it? Has his newspaper published it? If not, why not?

If he's an embedded reporter, working for a newspaper, a story like this would have been easy to write. Did he? An archive search would help.

Because if he hasn't, then he's got some 'splain' to do.

Posted by Bill Peschel at December 11, 2004 11:18 AM

Don't have time to say much at the moment, but I wanted to let y'all know that there is some good material on this matter at the current home page of Soldiers for the Truth:


Posted by Aakash at December 13, 2004 2:04 AM

transport trucks are -- or should be -- armored. They shoot at them too, you know. Probably the reason he couldn't get the story out before is because nobody in power wants bad news from Iraq.

Is self-preservation such a surprise? Were Rumsfeld and Bush concerned about body armor before it became an embarrassment for them?

That's even worse.

And maybe he helped the kid prepare the question, but if you saw the film, the applause looked genuine.

Posted by gun-toting liberal at December 16, 2004 4:29 PM