
The Sun and CNN are reporting that British Prince Harry is on his way home after The Drudge Report published details on his 10 week deployment to Afghanistan. They report that he's engaged the enemy, just like other gunners (no special favors) and directed airstrikes that kill 30 Taliban fighters. More details from The Sun:
His extraordinary tour of duty was known about by all British media - including The Sun - but kept secret under an unprecedented voluntary arrangement.Yet notorious US news website the Drudge Report yesterday revealed damaging details, sending top brass into a spin.
Generals were meeting late into last night to decide whether to rush Harry home five weeks ahead of schedule.
...One senior military source said: "We're going to have to bring him home immediately.
"We have to expect that every fanatical fighter in 1,000 miles of him will be pulling out all the stops to find him."
Interesting that there was a complete, voluntary media blackout, though in hindsight that was probably the only way he could actually have served.




Comments (16)
Drudge should have kept his... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Kim Priestap | February 29, 2008 8:00 AM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Drudge should have kept his mouth shut on this one.
1. Posted by Kim Priestap | February 29, 2008 8:00 AM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on February 29, 2008 08:00
2. Posted by Bunker | February 29, 2008 8:43 AM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Someone must of talked. How did Drudge find out?
2. Posted by Bunker | February 29, 2008 8:43 AM |
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on February 29, 2008 08:43
3. Posted by ExSubNuke | February 29, 2008 8:45 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Harkens back to the halcion days when when it was more important for journalists to do what was right, instead of getting the scoop at any cost.
Drudge shouldn't have reported it.
3. Posted by ExSubNuke | February 29, 2008 8:45 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on February 29, 2008 08:45
4. Posted by Jeff Medcalf | February 29, 2008 8:51 AM | Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
I understand their concern, but what ever happened to the royal tradition of military sacrifice? The royal family should embrace the risk, showing service to their subjects.
4. Posted by Jeff Medcalf | February 29, 2008 8:51 AM |
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
Posted on February 29, 2008 08:51
5. Posted by Mark L. | February 29, 2008 9:15 AM | Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
"The royal family should embrace the risk, showing service to their subjects."
All well and good if the risk is to the member of the Royal Family. Which it was when Prince Harry was in Afghanistan anonymously. But once it becomes known that the prince is serving in a war zone, it draws significant additional risk on those subjects in his unit.
Since Prince Harry is (in euphamistic military terms) a "high value target," the Taliban and al Qaeda would have spared no effort to take him out (or preferably kidnap him). Modern soldiers fight as a team, and having Prince Harry known to be on your team (or vehicle, or platoon) would have significantly increased the risk to you.
That is why Harry chose to serve anonymously. He did not mind his mates or himself getting shot at because they were British soldiers. Harry just didn't want his mates getting shot at because of his dad and grandmum.
5. Posted by Mark L. | February 29, 2008 9:15 AM |
Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
Posted on February 29, 2008 09:15
6. Posted by Darleen | February 29, 2008 9:24 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
The royal family should embrace the risk
They obviously did with Harry serving as just another Tommy. However, as Mark comments, once it was revealed it was "the" Prince Harry, Islamofascists would have tried anything to kill or capture him.
6. Posted by Darleen | February 29, 2008 9:24 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on February 29, 2008 09:24
7. Posted by Matt | February 29, 2008 9:28 AM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Well, if they let him keep the kit and the MG he should be well set to handle the paparatzi when he gets home.
7. Posted by Matt | February 29, 2008 9:28 AM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on February 29, 2008 09:28
8. Posted by Big Mo | February 29, 2008 10:18 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Drudge should have gotten the Knucklehead of the year for this. On the muckraking scale, it's brilliant, although not on the scale of his Lewinski coup. On the ethics scale, it's a huge zero. As others have said, the prince served in quiet so as not to make himself a special target. Now, because the story is blown wide open, his mates are in special danger.
(I wonder, though, if his mates have the attitude of "Bring it on, you $^!*^#" scum, because we'll protect our prince!)
Giant Kudos to the Brit media, which means BBC gets much credit, for keeping the lid on.
8. Posted by Big Mo | February 29, 2008 10:18 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on February 29, 2008 10:18
9. Posted by Jeff Medcalf | February 29, 2008 11:39 AM | Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
I suppose I was unclear, so I'd like to revise and extend my remarks. I realize that the Prince is a fairly high value target, and that that adds risks to his unit. However, the reason that he is a high value target is largely that the British treat him as not expendable. If the Royals were to come out, repeatedly and publicly, and make clear that Royals would spend their career in the military, assuming they have the aptitude, until such time as they must assume their ceremonial place, it would reduce future risks. If everyone knew that the Royals expect to lose its young men from time to time, and glory in their sacrifice in those conditions, then the future Royals would not be high value targets.
9. Posted by Jeff Medcalf | February 29, 2008 11:39 AM |
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on February 29, 2008 11:39
10. Posted by Mark Adams | February 29, 2008 11:44 AM | Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
"Knucklehead?" That's the best you can do? Where's the outrage? Where's the "Rope, Tree, Drudge ... some assembly required?"
All I see is some Tsk...Tsking. As a direct result of Drudge, ongoing operations directly against the very organization that perpetrated 9/11 were disrupted. Why the hell is Drudge getting a pass?
10. Posted by Mark Adams | February 29, 2008 11:44 AM |
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
Posted on February 29, 2008 11:44
11. Posted by LoveAmerica, Immigrant | February 29, 2008 12:32 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
All I see is some Tsk...Tsking. As a direct result of Drudge, ongoing operations directly against the very organization that perpetrated 9/11 were disrupted. Why the hell is Drudge getting a pass?
-------------------------------------
This is a joke! Liberals must know they are defending the liberal culture corruption, so they must find every excuse to justify their support of the liberal sew*ge. In this case, what does Drudge affect? Prince Harry!
In the mean time, the Dem congress had its own memo planning to use intelligence info for political purpose. This week the Dem congress was busy passing meaningless legislations about post office, the use of rotundra etc... but holding up FISA bill. Reid just came out to send encouraging message to the terrorists (ie he is working on surrendering in IRaq). The dem congress continue to play politics with our generals and national security. The liberal hypocrisy is just amazing.
11. Posted by LoveAmerica, Immigrant | February 29, 2008 12:32 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on February 29, 2008 12:32
12. Posted by P. Bunyan | February 29, 2008 1:02 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
"I understand their concern, but what ever happened to the royal tradition of military sacrifice? The royal family should embrace the risk, showing service to their subjects."
Times are very different, as is this war. When Harry's uncle served in the Falklands, the press was not the most powerful weapon of the enemy, Argentina, in fact it probably wasn't a weapon at all.
Today, the press is the most powerful terrorist weapon today so once Harry lost his anonymity he had to go home. He would have been too valuable to the terrorists who are losing badly, except in the leftist media.
12. Posted by P. Bunyan | February 29, 2008 1:02 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on February 29, 2008 13:02
13. Posted by Big Mo | February 29, 2008 1:53 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Mark Adams - no "outrage"? Well, because this pales in comparison to the real bilge that Big Media has done against the war effort almost since the beginning.
13. Posted by Big Mo | February 29, 2008 1:53 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on February 29, 2008 13:53
14. Posted by cliff | February 29, 2008 2:11 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I'm disgusted with Drudge. I thought he had a little more sense then these other media types. Apparently I was wrong.
I am even more disgusted by the media guy who drudge posted saying "thank God for drudge, will the people ever trust the media again?"
Well, no, we won't, but that's WHY. We'd trust them a whole lot more if they had enough common sense and decency to keep something like this quiet.
14. Posted by cliff | February 29, 2008 2:11 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on February 29, 2008 14:11
15. Posted by marc | February 29, 2008 4:39 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
"And although UK media only ran with the story today after it appeared on the Drudge Report, Australian women's magazine New Idea actually broke the news on January 7. German newspaper Bild is also reported to have run the story."
15. Posted by marc | February 29, 2008 4:39 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on February 29, 2008 16:39
16. Posted by poetryman69 | March 1, 2008 7:26 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Stop funding the terrorists!
No more Oil Wars!
Energy Independence Now!
Drill in Anwar.
Build more nuclear power plants
Use More coal.
Use more natural gas
Turn trash into energy
Double the efficiency of windmills and solar cells.
If France can do nuclear power so can we.
If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.
If Australia can do LNG power so can we.
Domestically produced energy will end the recession and spur the economy.
Stop paying oil dollars to those who worship daily at the alter of our destruction.
Preserve our Civil Rights and defend our Freedom by ending dependence on foreign oil.
16. Posted by poetryman69 | March 1, 2008 7:26 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 1, 2008 19:26