Is it contempt for Bush by the press? Shallow reporting? Lack of interest? I don't get it, particularly now that we know Saddam was funding and ordering attacks on Americans and training thousands of suicide bombers and arming them with carbombs and suicide vests. Are we supposed to believe he'd have just sat their idly by if we had only pursued the al Qaeda members that remained in Afghanistan?

I can't even begin to imagine what it must be like for you and the many other journalists covering war and civil strif but even then, there is no place like it. Somalia doesn't even get as close; and it's still horiffic. One question though, how do you deal with the trauma?

I'm not taking any sides I just like to hear your feed back thank you.

Drudge Report,
I do not understand your disregard for the lives of innocent citizen of Iraq and the courageous soldiers of the British Army. The disclosure of Prince Harry’s deployment to Iraq is nothing less than your callous targeting of an individual soldier for assassination. No matter which side you may or may not represent in viewpoint and content, your report served no purpose, other than increasing the likely hood of an attack directed towards his capture or death. A soldier’s commitment to duty and his comrades are paramount to his survival. The honorable men and women involved on any side of this conflict; his comrades in arms, innocent Iraqi men, women, and children, and insurgents who would make the attempt, would be caught in the crossfire, a crossfire whose likely hood is increased a thousand fold by your report. Any claim of innocence or idealistic journalism cannot dissolve your culpability in any future attack directed towards the unit within its area of operation, the civilian population, and any resulting damage to property and the infrastructure.
Any reasonable person with rudimentary understanding of the situation would come to the conclusion that the disclosure of Prince Harry’s location would only serve to increase the threat on his life and of those around him. If this was done to increase the turmoil in that area of Iraq, you have done an extraordinary great job. If you were working for the insurgents and purposely disclosed the location any personnel, I do not believe they would be as mildly inclined as I am. Maybe there is a lesson we should be taking from them. I do not see how you could possibly justify you action. At a minimum, a team of international liability lawyers should take advantage of Iraq’s budding judicial system to hold your organization responsible from a legal point of view. I think as a father and a military retiree, if I had the monetary means available as the royal family does, I would not stop in my campaign to touch you where it really hurts, the money. By comparing contact reports showing the trend in the units area of operation prior to your disclosure of Prince Harry’s location, and the contact reports after that disclosure can prove to be a direct link to your actions. How could you sleep knowing you’re increasing the risk of death and injury to so many people? If five die, would that be ok? What about 10, three of them children on their way to school? Was the risk worth it? Or is it ok if they strike at a passing patrol in hopes of getting lucky? So what, you and I both know Prince Harry will be removed. But do you understand the people involved? They may still retaliate after his departure just because he was there. The insurgents may feel a lesson in cooperation needs to be demonstrated. It happens all the time.

Sincerely,
Ralph P. Platt