Captured Documents and Reporters

I'm taking this information posted over at Captains Quarters with a huge grain of salt, but it's very interesting news. The more interesting point is when and how it will be reported by primary media sources. Well, I tracked down a reference to it in the Globe. It's the last two paragraphs in a story about the new Iraqi government:

Locked in a battle for public opinion as much as in combat with the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, the U.S. military published on Monday what it said was a captured al Qaeda document that it said showed the Sunni Islamist guerrillas recognized that they were weak and unpopular in Baghdad.

A translation of the undated, three-page document, whose authenticity could not be independently assessed, suggested al Qaeda was reviewing tactics in the city, currently focused on car bombs and other guerrilla tactics, and proposing improving its military capabilities to hold territory in any civil war.

That's it. Nothing about the failure of their approaches, the size of the remaining troops, the growing lack of support within the community that they're supposedly fighting for. Nothing. Just a very careful emphasis on where the information comes from and the fact that it can't be confirmed from other sources. Interesting how statements from the military really need confirming sources. Would the same rules apply if this document went on & on about how unsucessful the American military was, how great the insurgency was going, etc.? Yeah, I didn't think so either.