I don't know either but as the husband of a reporter, I might choose to believe the guy who is actually in Iraq, who sent the dispatch. Assuming he wasn't typing it from Jason's old desk in the NYT of course! However, I do not know; who knows any more? The country is divided, everybody, on both sides, is shouting "liar, liar" and who do you believe? Has the currency of belief been devalued? It has for me - and the NYT and Bush have al been part of that. Oh to be a swing voter with no vote.

Eoin, how can anyone believe that the US military is deliberately targeting journalists? It's a warzone, of course people are going to get caught in the crossfire. But to believe the US would do it on purpose is outrageous.

I can believe that. I can believe that any powerful institution can be corrupted just as easily as any powerful institution can be mobilised to alleviate suffering. Neither suprises me.

I know journalists have been killed all over the world, by military, paramilitary and good old fashioned psychos on all sides. I have heard cases before of journalists being eliminated by US forces in other conflicts, the Panama invasion springs to mind. I don't KNOW if that really happened but waht I choose to BELIEVE is obviously shaped by what I hear. Waht is important is that I do not let these sources DICTATE what I believe. Sorry for the capitalisation. I do not believe Bush is secretly telling anybody to shoot journalists but I can believe that somebody on the US side, with authority, is condoning such behaviour. Especially, in these times of stress.

A month before those pictures surfaced, would you have called it "outrageous" to believe that there was widespread torture of Iraqi prisoners by US forces? Maybe so, maybe not, but i would not have believed it outrageous. I knew from personal testimony I have heard that many of the tactics employed in Iraq were used by the British army in Northern Ireland in the 1970s during the period of internment. It seems to me that this recent episode shattered an assumption that Americans (perhaps rightly?) hold i.e. any military intervention under the Stars and Stripes will only promote human rights, not further prolong that abuse.

And lastly: I think the way you say " But to believe the US would do it on purpose is outrageous" reminds me a big reason I chose not to pursue a career in politics in the US. The range of debate in American politics is too narrow for my blood. Until the evidence is flashed in our faces, people will be marginalised and discredited for casting suspicions or proposing solutions that fall outside the narrow range of American political debate. I was already feeling this frustration in one semester of Grad school. I'm not saying this is systematic political supression, just a factor of living in a democracy of 300 million people, but soemthing that I felt would lead me to personal dissatisfaction. Nor, do I condemn politicians for skillfully maneuvering within this narrow range: I admire their skill, just as I admire yours and don't condemn you for saying that it is outrageous to believe such things. But as long as I don't work in mainstream American politics, I guess I CAN believe such reporting.