As an example, victory on the Iraqi front was quickly redefined after the sweeping military successes and deposing of Hussein's regime in only 3 weeks.  Further victory is now a matter of helping the Iraqi people understand and accept their liberation and use their new freedoms to build a successful and productive nation.

The role of the press in our free society is to inform the public of facts by researching legitimate sources and disseminating information in a timely, accurate and responsible manner.

In today's War Against Terrorism the press is a needed service to help reduce uncertainties by accurately reporting progress and set-backs.

Procedure & Policy:

1.  Questions may be submitted for review.   Answers will be provided on a Need-to-Know basis only following complete consideration of all potential ramifications of information disseminated to the press.

2.  Phrase your questions concisely and with specificity.  Run-on questions and questions that contain embedded theories attempting to answer themselves will be discarded.

Question:  When bin Laden and most of his terrorists have been killed or captured and when the Taliban has been made impotent and when a coalition governance is established representing the people of Afghanistan, the U.S.-led War Against Terrorism will be seen by most nations as having accomplished meaningful results.  At that point several fringe allies are likely to start calling for a stoppage of hostilities against the terrorists and more loudly complain that the United States is going too far.

Should the United States continue with its commitment to take terrorism to the terrorists, thereby forcing them to understand that their methods will be fruitless in the future?  And, to follow-up, should the United States make it obvious to all terrorist fanatics that terrorism does not make their point in a civilized world?

Question:  During the Cold War the world could simplistically understand there was a stand-off between two powerful opponents, both of whom acted rationally most of the time.  Today the United States is the only super-power remaining.  If some allies start to claim 'enough' in the War Against Terrorism, should the remaining allies continue to carry on the war into the hearts of the terrorists?

And, to follow-up, if the allies stop prematurely, won't a premature stoppage tell all future terrorists precisely how far civilization is willing to go against them if they decide to re-ignite the world through terrorism?  Should terrorists everywhere be brought to justice?

Question:  There are allied civilians and military personnel serving their homelands working to make civilization safe again by fighting in the War Against Terrorism.  Do you feel any media outlets, including television and print press, have the right to make public any and all information they ferret out even if that information could put both civilian and military personnel at risk?

Question:  The War Against Terrorism is taking terror to the terrorists and that is understandably going to be a lengthy project.  How do you plan to maintain people's stoic, unswerving strength over this unknown period?

Question:  Do you have any response to those self-aggrandizing members of the media who unrelentingly repeat, sensationalize, and spin any story into a negative and demoralizing one?

Question:  The media continually repeats Taliban information releases stating the number (5, 10, 45, etc.) of civilian casualties and the homes that are accidentally damaged during allied strikes.  Groups of journalists are being given guided tours through damaged war zone areas.  Coverage of this event has far outweighed coverage of the successful allied military strikes.

Nearly 7,000 civilians were killed and injured in the United States, the World Trade Center and Pentagon buildings were destroyed, tens of thousands of people's work places and homes were disrupted and dislocated, the U. S. and global economies were damaged, and families and friends of those lost in the horrific collapse of the WTC and Pentagon have suffered psychological injury.

How is it that the media appear to have already forgotten and forgiven the terrorists for the massive damage inflicted and are now repeatedly reporting Taliban propaganda and focusing their cameras and stories away from New York and the Pentagon over to the 3,000 year old styled housing of Afghanistan?  Doesn't the media understand that in war munitions will damage unintended areas by accident and that the unverifiable number of Afghani deaths reported by the Taliban is disproportionately small compared to the thousands of all nationalities killed in terrorist attacks over the last 20 years on airplanes, ships, streets, in embassies, office buildings, restaurants, military barracks, ...?

Question:  Do you feel that the sneak attack upon the United States' homeland justifies any form of retaliation at all?...  or would it be better to turn the other cheek and allow terrorists to continue to believe that we are too lazy and weak to respond and they can continue to terrorize the civilized world with impunity?

Question:  The Taliban continues to demand evidence against bin Laden.  At the same time bin Laden's spokesman threatens to hit the United States again and urges Muslims to stay off airplanes and out of tall buildings.  What more proof is needed?

Question:  It has been reported that the allies stop their retaliation efforts on Fridays because Friday is the Muslim holy day.  Do you think that policy is consistent with the terrorists' long-time policy toward civilian and military targets?

Question:  The newspaper USA Today reports that one lesson the United States learned in Viet Nam is that it should not go into a military conflict without an exit strategy.  Of course the U. S. had no choice other than self-defense following the sneak attack on September 11 that included killing nearly 6,000 civilians and so much more.  The paper went on to quote President Bush's campaign statement in which he supported that lesson.  USA Today then continued with its belief that Mr. Bush has no exit strategy today.

Yet the facts are that when President Bush initiated our self-defense retaliation efforts following September 11, he clearly stated that we will wage a War Against Terrorism and we will not waiver, we will prevail.  He made clear his plan is to take terrorism to the terrorists, bring terrorists to justice and make terrorism a non-viable alternative.  In summary, to destroy terrorism is his exit strategy.  The United States will exit the war arena when it has defeated terrorism and its thugs.  Will you comment?

Question:  Individuals in the media continually ask questions that most reasonable people realize deal with tactics, techniques and procedures which, if answered would endanger future missions and our cause.  Several times during press briefings the Pentagon representative must reiterate that he "cannot respond to that question because it goes to tactics, techniques and procedures."

Even if many of these questions were answered, the information is detail not truly meaningful for the media's reports.  This information could be important for the enemy and help it understand our tactics and strategy.  Can you explain why individuals in the media continue to ask questions of this nature?

Question:  Do you see the September 11 attacks as being analogous to the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand in 1914?  Historically, will the September 11 attacks mark the start of WWIII just as the assassination marks the start of WWI?

Question:  Individuals in the media continually ask questions demonstrating the media's war focus is on the capture of bin Laden and Mullah Omar.  The objectives of the War Against Terrorism include:  1.) Insure homeland safety, and,  2.) Disrupt the terrorists thus making them unable to perpetrate terrorism and forcing them to understand that terrorism is not an option to resolve their dislike of Western Civilization or any other personal problems.

So why is it that media people fail to understand that to accomplish those two objectives will include the eventual capture of bin Laden and Omar as part of winning the war, but not primary objectives?

Question:  Recently a Russian general and his staff were killed when their helicopter was shot down over one of the "--stan" nation-states.  Reports indicate that a militiaman using a shoulder-mounted stinger-type missile accomplished this feat.  Why is it deemed necessary or even appropriate for the United States to send cabinet-level and other top non-military administration people into dangerous territory to get their "first hand looks" at something that all of us view on television daily and that our top brass could view from satellites, special video-taping military missions and even CNN?  And doesn't it send a message of weakness to the enemy when our top leadership lowers itself to visit those areas?

Question:  Why is war coverage mainly about the reporters covering the war and not about the war itself?   Is it because of the clandestine nature of the War Against Terrorism?  Is it because the in-country reporters cannot get the troops to talk about actual fighting?  Why does so much reporting involve reporters talking with reporters?

Question:  We in the media have a difficult time understanding how meaningful it is that bin Laden's number three in command has been captured.  We seem to be focused on his rights as if he were a civilized human being and a citizen of the United States of America and thereby guaranteed all rights under the Constitution.  We understand that he was instrumental in training, planning and carrying out several terrorist attacks around the world including the series of attacks on September 11, 2001, and that he likely has complete knowledge of al Qaeda's terrorism plans, the strengths and weaknesses of its forces, logistics, financing, covert activities, global connections and more.

Some of us actually understand that the capture of one of bin Laden's bullies is analogous to the capture of one of Hitler's henchmen during W.W.II.

Could you please clarify why my colleagues in the media are being overly concerned about his and other prisoners' welfare.  The media should realize that these individuals are fortunate to have been captured by such a forgiving and civilized nation.  They will be treated very much better than American and Allied soldiers and members of the press -- including Daniel Pearl.

Question:  Why is so much War Against Terrorism news coverage actually media people interviewing other media people?

Question:  A recent example of CBS News bias:  "A top-secret briefing memo presented to President Bush in 1998 focused on efforts by Osama bin Laden to strike at targets...."

MEMO TO CBS NEWSROOM:  MR. BUSH TOOK OFFICE IN JANUARY OF 2001.

The United States' culture is a victim of lowered hiring and educational standards.  However, that is not as dangerous as the ignorance, bias and lack of ability to think clearly.  What might media managements do to improve accuracy in reporting?

This site is on the highway of

Always useful, mapped and paved with information.^SM