Reporting in a war zone is dangerous. Being exposed to danger means occasional injury or death (or kidnapping and possible death for reporters in Iraq). It’s the same danger faced by Coalition forces, or for that matter by civilians, in Iraq every day. I’m sympathetic to the injured journos and their families. But this is just something that happens in places like this.

“If the U.S. (Bush) hadn’t have gone into Iraq, or at least had pulled out sooner, than this (Woodruff’s injuries), as well as others, would not have happened.�

Yeah, and if my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle. I certainly don’t think many reasonable people are going to blame Bush for Woodruff’s injuries. War is war, and some reporters choose to go into the theatre. That’s up to them.

In any event, I think you’re REALLY reaching here Denise. Sure, some people might blame Bush, but those are the people who will ALWAYS blame Bush, and neither you nor I am interested in those voices, right?

I’m sorry, but you continually call the media into question about being biased, but then you essentially accuse them before the fact about bashing Bush.

In short, you can do better.

How is somebody going to bash Bush for this? Frankly, that’s a very odd ending to this post.

Not so odd an ending when you consider the possible argument of …
“If the U.S. (Bush) hadn’t have gone into Iraq, or at least had pulled out sooner, than this (Woodruff’s injuries), as well as others, would not have happened.”

You really don’t see this sentiment possibly coming through in subsequent reporting and editorializing?

I stated in my comments with the post that I hoped the focus would stay upon a broader view of the situation because there’s opportunity to prevent, or at least minimize, the risk associated with this type of assignment. The tendency historically has been to place blame upon policy decisions, rather than look for other aspects of the situation which may be just as, if not more, relevent.

Should there be consideration for training, similar to what the military requires for field combat duty, that journalists must successfully complete before these type of risky assignments?

No. That restricts the freedom of the press. They do this job at their own peril. Woodruff’s injuries are very tragic, but that’s just part of the job and he knew that going in.

Hopefully the focus will be just as much upon ways of increasing the safety of journalists (through protective equipment and training, as well as determining what areas deserve restriction) instead of turning into solely an administration/policy bashing.

I have heard NO “bashing” of the administration, and frankly, that you even bring it up in this context seems particularly odd. How is somebody going to bash Bush for this? Frankly, that’s a very odd ending to this post.