. . . (actually, after retirement) he did a nice piece all about how the media forced the hand of U.S. in its reporting of one-sided news. The result of this was for the nation to back out of that conflict, resulting in hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese lives lost. Today just goes to show that old media habits die hard -- and so may Iraqi citizens. At the moment, the U.N. may or may not join us. It is a fact that the general public doesn't care one way or the other. After all, Iraq is over there, and we're way over here.

Cronkite's fears may well be justified, but hardly worth the write-up he give them. I think we can all survive "a wry, 'I told you so' smile" far better than another 9/11. And “our national prestige” has always survived just fine, regardless of the countless gasps from sensationalists.

Personally, I feel that Powell is very right. We need to stay and see the nation through its first elections, then leave.

And if you actually read what I wrote, Raoul, you'll see that I never once stated anything regarding freedom of speech, but I am glad you brought that up. Somewhere out there is a news agency that might me mature enough to be able to govern what they print, which is another freedom. I wonder why there is so little being said in support of the Bush administration that does not come on the heels of a generally skewed, often misrepresented attack.

Well, the media remains free to type what it will -- here, anyway -- but will invariably sensationalize the failings of the "world powers", and fail at their sensational successes. The public remains in the dark on the matters of Western successes in the Middle East, but that seems to be the way our so-called "freedom of the press" wants it.

Dan