Others have also – as found in the links above – cast doubt on even the count of 12.

So Miguel, the partisanship here is all yours.

If you’re new to the controversy of Eason Jordan allegedly accusing our troops of targeting journalists, see the original post here, whic…

I understand that at least two representatives of the U.S. senate were present at this forum. Don’t they have a moral (if not legal) responsibility to speak up on behalf of our military. This has the potential to damage the credibility of the US. I understand Sen Frank did publically question the allegations but Dodd remained silence. It would seem to me pressure should be put on the two senators to make a public comment on the incident. I called Dodd’s office and the staffer seemed unaware but concerned about the nature of the charges. She nervously asked if I was a member of the press (which i am not). I told her I was just a concerned citizen from CA. She said she would check into it. Is there a way to bring public pressure on Dodd and Frank? If so I think they have a responsibility to investigate the charges and publically denounce Jordan if proven untrue. If true then disiplinary action should be taken against anyone who has executed a journalist.

Thomas P. Brady

If I understand the story straight, Eason said that 12 killed journalists were ‘targeted’ by US soldiers. He later clarified that what he meant was that out of the 63 killed jounalists 12 were directly shot at by US soldiers in cases of mistaken identity. When he used the word ‘targeted’ he was trying to use it in opposition to the phrase ‘collateral damage’, which in my mind connotates something like an explosion with civilian bystanders getting killed. Getting directly shot at seems qualitatively different.

What is it that you object to in what he said? Do you deny that 63 reporters have been killed? If so, on what basis? Do you not believe that US soldiers have killed non-combatants? If so, you are naive.

As a boss whose employees and coworkers are being killed, Eason urging the US military to be more careful seems more than reasonable. What exactly is the ‘liberal bias’ here? If you bloggers were actually in Iraq and were getting shot at, I’m sure you’d feel the same way CNN does.

To me, the real story here is the horribleness of war and how conservatives are so intent on avoiding it. War is the worst possible human endeavour, whether justified or not. If 63 journalists have been killed, how many Iraqi civilians have suffered at the hands of ‘collateral damage’?

Remember the tsunami? I would guess that about the same number of civilians have been killed in this war. And I’m sure that there are as just as many heart-breaking stories, but you don’t want to hear about it. Anyone that even slightly reminds you of this fact is accused of being part of the ‘anti-US crowd’, a ‘traitor’, a ‘terrorist sympathizer’, on and on.

Why do you want to keep your head in the sand about civilian deaths? Is it because you don’t want even the slightest tarnish on Saint W?

This is partisanship at it’s worst.

Captain Ed weighs in here, and had more info yesterday.

If Jordan has evidence of this military practice, why hasn’t CNN r…

Earlier this week, Eason Jordan, the man who runs CNN’s news department and a otherwise high honcho in the company made an allegation at the Davos forum in front of an international audience. He said that …