I am still torn on embedding journalists just for these types of situations. There are things in combat that most people, including me, can understand or appreciate. I do not know what happened, just what I saw, and it didn't appear to me to be a good situation.

By Sites account of the incident, I am also curious why the guy who was moving wasn't a threat. It could be that the Marine thought he was booby trapped, but only that Marine knows. I don't know if the Marine deserves any punishment and still believe that our troops are the good guys. Unfortunately, images like these give our enemies and the world community a different image of us than what I get.

I heard on AM radio last night while I was driving back from St Louis that Kevin Sites hated America and had done more to hurt out troops than Abu Ghraib or anything previous had. One guy said that even if he didn’t know what he had done, he should be seen as a traitor. I have tried to find what I was listening to, but don’t even know what station my wife had it on, so it has been hard. I just want to find a transcript so I can have it and post it. If I find it, I will let add it on.

One good thing for the Marine and Sites is apparently the Pacers/ Pistons fight. That is apparently the most important thing to happen in a long while. At least, it appears that way because of the coverage.

I'm inclined to give Kevin the benefit of the doubt. He's been a faithful reporter of events during the whole conflict. Maybe the Marine did something wrong, maybe not. We know that the truth will be told and that events aren't always as simple as they seem -especially on video. Whether the enemy uses the video as "proof" of Amercian perfidy is a moot point. The enemy will seize _any_ opportunity, warranted or not, to make his point and there's nothing you or I nor Kevin Sites can do about it. To somehow equate the lone actions of a single Marine with the wholescale slaughter of innocents is laughable to anyone who isn't inclined to believe Americans are bloodthirtsy in the first place.

I agree that the video itself isn't going to convince rational people that we just like to kill. I also am not worried about the insurgents or the terrorists who already hate us. I just think that tapes like this can be used by those radical people to induce those in the middle to fight.

There are those in the region who don't like their leaders, but also don't like us. Regardless of what we think of them or say about their regimes, they will never fully trust us. I know what I think of the video and the Marines actions, but my opinion doesn't matter in the region. Neither does Andy's, and unless Jake is an Arab in the Middle East, neither does his.

The people we need to make Iraq work are those pople in the middle who hated Saddam, but don't like us either. If we lose the people who appreciate the removal of Saddam, but resent our presence, we will lose Iraq.

Heh, as a Jew in the New York area and most certainly not an Arab in the ME (not that there's anything wrong with that) I can assure you that I am not appreciative of the video. I feel very strongly that Kevin Sites' actions or motives should be in question here. Sometimes news is just news, plain and simple. I agree that the video is not pleasant and it certainly plays into the hands of our enemies. We live in a free society, however, and thus we sometimes have to fight with one hand tied behind our back, so to speak. If the cost of freedom is a transparency that facilitates enemy propaganda, we really have no choice. Besides, there's always be something for Al-Jazeera to harp on, they're as predictable as the sun. If it wasn't the Marine tape, it would have assuredly been something else that we would probably be anaylyzing instead.

I concur with Jake (although I assume he meant that Sites' actions should not be questioned). Videos like this (or the photos of Abu Ghraib) are the price we pay for a free society. I'd rather have to deal with the problems coming from difficult-to-explain photos or videos than have somebody deciding which get published in the first place.

Ah, yes, I meant Kevin's actions should _not_ be questions. By my account he's a stand-up guy.

I agree with all these things. I would rather live in a place where we are able to see these things rather than have them censored by the government. I don't care what extremists think about us or whether or not Saudi Arabia thinks we are infidels.

I am just saying that there are people who are shocked when they see that most of the insurgents we are capturing are Iraqis. These same people will say that they hate us for our freedoms. There are many reasons why people don't like us and many of those who don't, are not terrorists. I am not saying that I care what they think or think that we should have a shroud of secrecy over our actions to prevent angering people, just that it makes it harder to get those "on the fence" people who we need to make Iraq work.

Whether or not they like us is not relevant. Whether or not they will support us helping to establish the Iraqi government is.

I am glad they showed the video because it shows that we are not trying to hide our actions or cover them up. I am just saying that it makes it harder to keep those unsure of our intentions from joining the insurgency. Terrorist recruitment will go up if we let a Porta-Potty in Iraq get full, so I don't concern myself with how the video will affect them.

By the way, my wife is about to link me with John Ashcroft because I do not believe that freedom of the press is an absolute protection of press actions. I am also not in support of mass embedding of journalists in our current age of instant access.