Among the journalistic cliches that should be outlawed by editors around the nation is the anecdotal "I talked to a [instert service]."

To begin with, unnamed sources are supposed to be rather suspect to begin with. Second, "a marine" could be anything from a clerk/typist private to a battle hardened general. Third, it is somewhat disturbing to hear so many pols (on both sides of the issue) desperately try and convince me that "The Marines" (or whomever) believe in one policy or the other. Who gives a rats ass what that Marine thinks? He volunteered, he goes where/when ordered. Pretending as though the military has some special claim on policy making is a root element of militarism that is being reflected by all sides in this debate. ("the soldiers want to come home!" "The soldiers want to stay/win!" etc. etc.).

It is absolutely trivial to find a single anecdotal person within the vast military who will just happen to have an opinion that is in line with whatever you want to write. If you are really serious about discovering the "mood" of the military, then do scientifically rigorous polling. Heck, let's just have an election and let the troops themselves decide whether or not they want to stay. After all, as every PFC will tell you, any PFC knows what to do better than any SFC or general - let alone commander in chief.

Indeed, Bush is yet another practitioner. He dodges responsibility by emphasizing "the military's plans" (not like the commander in chief has anything to do with planning) and speechifying his own anecdotal tales of soldiers/sailors/marines who just happen to believe wholeheartedly in his policies.

Polling the troops didn't win the two world wars. And most people don't even bother to poll, but rather pull "my soldier cousin Vinny" out of a handy hat. Enough with quoting un-named random service members like they were Oracles of Delphi.

the "man in the foxhole" (or desk cubicle, if he's a supply clerk) interviews make compelling battlefield reporting, and are a tradition.

however, the tradition of reporting what battlefield generals see as pluses, minuses, and next steps is largely absent from the iraqi reporting . . . who is eschewing or suppressing these from our newspapers and why?

President Bush doesn't care about what happens to the Iraqis and he (along with Cheney, Rice and Rumsfield) certainly has never cared about what happens to the Soldiers and Marines that he committed to this poorly planned, resourced and executed "adventure". All he cares about is his "legacy", his loss of power to dictate domestic policy and the impact on the ability of his "base" (capitalists and right wing Christians and ultrapatriots) to maintain national and local control of the government.

which of the following presidents DID NOT care about "his legacy" . .. ?

• clinton, who bombed an aspirin factory and went to war in the balkans?
• bush 1, who organized the coalition in gulf war 1
• reagan, who sent troops into many foreign skirmishes
• carter, who authorized, then chickened out of the hostage rescue
• nixon, who prolonged the vietnam war after . .
• johnson, who enlarged the vietname war after initial troops were sent in by . ..
• JFK

and so on and so forth.