House Defense chair asks Pentagon to remove embedded CNN reporters (as payback for aiding and abetting the enemy)
http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=5569487

SAN DIEGO The chair of the House Armed Services Committee asked the Pentagon today to remove C-N-N reporters embedded with U-S combat units.
The network televised portions of a video on Wednesday showing insurgent snipers targeting U-S military personnel.

Executives said the tape came to the network unexpectedly through contact with an insurgent leader.

Representative Duncan Hunter wrote in his letter that, quote, "C-N-N has now served as the publicist for an enemy propaganda film featuring the killing of an American soldier."

San Diego-area Republicans Darrell Issa and Brian Bilbray also signed the letter.

C-N-N executives defended their decision to air the footage, saying its news value outweighed other concerns.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Yes, why can't they.

Excerpted and linked.

who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly...

I remember first seeing this language several years ago when people in the Middle East were being quoted -- people living and working in countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt. The implication at that time was that the person being quoted was moral and upright and trying to be helpful but worked under such a repressive regime that he (or she) would be dragged away and tortured extensively if caught talking to Western media.

Since then, we've had numerous leaks from American bureaucracies charged with protecting the security of the United States, and the quoted language is used by the fine folks at the NY Times to imply that the leakers are fine, upstanding moral people who are just trying to get "the truth" out to the American public. Never mind that in some cases, it's actively harming our war effort and is therefore treason, and in other cases, it's a pack of lies made up by liberal ex-ambassador husband and his liberal CIA-employed wife in an effort very simply to hurt the Bush administration.

Nevertheless, using "who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly" must be another deliberate attempt to piggy-back upon the initial usage of "speaking truth against a repressive regime", which in pretty much ALL cases means "Democrats speaking their version of the truth against the Bush administration".

If they are not authorized to speak publicly, can't that also mean they're simply not qualified because of stupidity or lack of access to all the facts, and NOT that some over-bearing official with torture in mind will do bad things to them if their name is discovered?