In the highly politicized environment surrounding this war, and with the Madison Avenue techniques being applied to managing public information
(i.e., the the honest word is "propaganda"), individual incidents like this one become ideological weapons for both sides. I suspect this episode is indicative of no particular trend or policy and may be isolated and insignificant in the larger scheme of things. I really don't know, the facts are all not in yet, but let's proceed on that assumption for the time being.

Things like Abu Ghraib or individual atrocities by rogue American troops become blown out of proportion by both opponents of the war as well as its defenders. One side uses it as proof the war should end right now, the other side tries to claim everything is hunky-dory and they should be ignored, attacking those who dwell on these incidents as traitors. The position of power is to see to it that its case is presented positively to the people, or in public relations jargon "tell our side of the story". It is the press's job to not let them get away with lies when they do this, because believe me, they WILL lie if they think they can get away with it. You can see this in every thing on the news today, with each side pushing its own version of events and political factions operating their own media outlets. When fair journalists try to sort out the mess and they detect deliberate cover-ups, misdirections, and outright lies, they usually respond with an exagerrated and pathological skepticism of what the authorities are telling us, which in turn provokes defenders of administration policy to fantasize about media conspiracies and traitors controlling an "opposition press". Every event is scanned and judged through these polarizing filters, and both sides use it to justify their own lies and evasions.

But you're right, the government certainly must accept some responsibility for bringing this situation on itself. To keep it all safely in the past, remember the Pentagon Papers? None of this is new, and it is no surprise the press no longer trusts the government. And what about Nixon making it a military secret that we were invading Cambodia, as if the enemy didn't know they were being invaded. The government has been caught lying too many times, not to protect military secrets, but to hide the truth from its own people. And even when the government tries to be honest, as in Bush I's invasion of Iraq (I think "Desert Storm" was the Hollywood moniker they stuck on that one), the press just doesn't believe them any more and they question the actions and motives of our armed forces in a fashion that can bring little comfort to our troops and allies, and only glee to our enemies.

This war, born from a host of questionable assumptions to begin with, and perpetuated by a constant change in mission, goals and milestones, and an eerily unevolving strategy with no definition of victory, lends itself to this, and to the polarization of society into warring camps who no longer believe or listen to each other. Every single incident, event, policy and maneuver in this conflict is uncritically defended by one side, and unanimously condemned by the other. Obviously, something is wrong here: nothing is THAT black and white.

I've been on this board now for over a year, and I've watched this debate bog down into a question of ideologies, not of strategies. It has become personal and insulting, and it has created factions which carry the fight into collateral areas where political preferences shouldn't even be an issue. I've seen rhetorical tactics which are reprehensible, such as the ambush, the deliberate provocation, the evasion and misdirection, the hijacking of threads into separate directions, and when things are gettting too quiet, the deliberate detonation of inflammatory posts designed for no other reason than to piss people off and start a fight.

I have my opinions, and I am partisan on some issues, and debate and discussion and conflict is one reason boards like this are good and necessary. But I also find this kind of dialogue divisive and upsetting. It has driven me off several times (especially when I felt personally insulted).

But I'm back for good now, and I feel confident I can do some good here without succumbing to the temptation of having to humiliate my opponents. I will try to do this by by not feeling obligated to enter every scrap that develops, or to respond to posts which are clearly designed to attack rather than make a point. I promise to avoid the deliberate inflammatory provocation ("Bush is an asshole!") and to not respond to every one I see that I find offensive. I will try to avoid communicating at all with those who are not interested in talking, but only in shouting down their opponents. There are already some people I do not respond to because they ARE assholes. I also promise to intervene when I find my opponents are being treated unfairly, and to support them when I find I am in agreement with them on some point, and to take my party to task when I feel they are wrong about something. I think it is possible to stand up for your side or to fight off a bully without having to turn every thread into a battlefield.

I don't know how successful I'll be with these resolutions, but I do promise to try, and if everyone else here did also, I think we'd enjoy the neighborhood much more.