25,000 Iraqis Displaced Since Mosque Bombing
In Iraq, a relief agency says more than 25,000 Iraqis have fled their homes since last month's bombing of a holy Shiite shrine in Sammara. The International Organization for Migration says scores of shelters and tent cities are housing increasing numbers of displaced Sunni and Shiite families. Aid officials say the internal migration is only continuing.
do you think bully boy frets or worries about that. (it's from democracy now, by the way.)
i don't think so. not when he's blaming the chaos, the chaos he created, on saddam hussein.
are people aware of what happened in fallujah? either time but especially in november of 2004 when the second wave of destruction (including white phosophorus) hit the city? where do people think the victims of that massacre live? not the 1s slaughtered but the 1s who managed to get out. what do people think they had to return to? houses were leveled. the city was in ruins. dexy filkins was getting a chubby just watching it all go blow to the heavens but the reality (always in short supply when filkins 'reports') is that what happened was a tragedy and a war crime and dexy filkins is as much a war criminal as the administration because he sold it as entertainment. he should be ashamed of himself.
and so should any 1 else who's still holding on to the idea that we're somehow 'liberating' any 1. we aren't doing any such thing. we are contributing to the violence with our presence.
i want to call attention to c.i.'s post from nov. 21, 2004 (when dexy's 'award winning' war porn ran):
The rah-rah piece carries the dateline "Nov. 18" in this story published in the November 21st edition. Allowing for the time needed to put together a Sunday edition, I'm still questioning that. The story was filed on the 18th (Thursday) and pops up on the 21st (Sunday). And there's the added detail, not provided in Dexter Filkins story, that Lance Cpl. William Miller died November 15th (http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=11-2004).
Perhaps we're all supposed to count the "eight days after the Americans entered the city on foot?"
If so The Guardian places that as November 8th (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1346721,00.html) and eight days later would be the sixteenth -- well Times reporters aren't necessarily noted for their math.The point here is that the story on today's front page (November 21, 2004) begins with a battle from November 15th without ever alerting the reader to this fact. An occurence six days prior is their front page Iraq story. (Which makes one think of Chris Hedges' comments on the nature of war correspondence.)
Was the story "cleared" -- is that the reason for the long delay in the Times reporting on events from the 15th?
Is anyone else bothered by the rah-rah nature of this report that reads like the plot to a video game? After reading the article is anyone else feeling like Filkins is a lot like Bob Dylan's "Mr. Jones" -- "Something is happening, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Filkins?"
before the 'award winning' dexy became award winning with his war porn, c.i. was questioning him and his reporting in real time.
i'm still bothered by the poll on aol last week. we're supposed to either believe the media is too liberal or else belive they're doing a great job, based upon the way that poll was set up. there are more choices than that. that's not reality and you and i know that.
i'm also real tired of hearing corporate reporters defend themselves and speak of danger that they've been under. you know what? you should have written about it. instead of pretending like everything was wonderful in iraq, you should have written that you couldn't leave the green zone. and this nonsense about even though you didn't leave the green zone, your articles were strong because a stringer or 2 gave you the information? you didn't do the reporting. they did the reporting. you put your anglo name on it and you took the credit.
did you write 'i am a prisoner of the green zone, unable to leave and this report is me writing information that stringers are giving me because it's not safe for me to leave the green zone'?
no. so you lied.
you lied to the readers. you let them think that you had mobility and could go anywhere. while iraq was falling to pieces, you lied.
now you want our sympathies? oh how awful it is for you. because YOU are the story, right? not the iraqis you are supposed to be reporting on. not the iraqis who live in danger every day the illegal occupation continues.
and you want to snap things like 'you weren't there!' guess what, you weren't there either. you were in a hotel or villa, heavily guarded. don't lecture critics on what you know when you didn't bother to report the very little that you knew.
robert fisk did. robert fisk also spoke about it.
but the american embeds stayed silent on reality and acted like things were hunky dorky in terms of their travel. the inability to travel didn't happen last month or the month before. this has been a long process and only now are they beginning to speak about it publicly.
i have no sympathy. i have sympathy for jill carrol and others who tried to get reality out of ira. dahr jamail, to name 1. patrick cockburn and robert fisk. i have sympathy for them and admiration for them.
but the rest? the 1s who stayed silent about reality the same way they stayed silent on the attacks on al jazeera?
i don't care that maybe it was real hard ordering room service and sitting around the green zone.
you wanted to report from a war zone, you knew the problems. you went there and you refused to report on reality. don't come back to the united states and expect a lot of sympathy when your lies allowed the occupation to continue and the american people who only follow corporate media to think things were much better than they were.
that's my gripe tonight.
a 'jim' wrote in. i'm not really sure why. it appears to be a pick up e-mail (offering relationship or just e-mails). jim, i'm involved with my ex-husband currently. you sound like a wonderful man with your likes and dislikes list. but i'm in a relationship right now, so thank you all the same.
i also got e-mails wondering if c.i. 'ripped you a new 1'? that's in ref to what i wrote last night. 1st, c.i. was yelling on the phone. but that was due to the fact that c.i. was at a rally and using a cell phone. c.i. didn't 'rip' into me. c.i. wanted to know why i hadn't linked to some 1 who was linking to me. after that was addressed, c.i. wanted to talk about what kind of support we're giving to the community.
c.i. had hard questions for me and hard self-questions as well. because we're long term friends, there is no need to pussy foot around the issue. this wasn't griping (and c.i. was far tougher on self than on me). c.i. noted that i do a great job of noting cedric, for instance.
c.i.'s concern was whether we were all doing our part to promote 1 another? due to the way the common ills is set up, c.i.'s not always noting every 1. (also due to time issues.) elaine and i can be noted very easily there because we're always calling c.i. about something. (we have always spoken to 1 another a great deal but once the invasion started we started speaking much more often. it probably went from twice a week most weeks to 5 to 7 times a week or more.) so if 1 of us says something on the phone, it's very easy for c.i., in the middle of an entry, to say 'rebecca pointed out' or whatever. but are we promoting trina enough? (trina's got a great recipe for mexican rice. even i was able to cook it without any problems.) or any of the other sites?
you all are wonderful readers and share great e-mails. i know you're smart and dedicated. and i'm thankful for you and know i'm lucky to be 2nd to the common ills in most read. but as the top 2 most read online (if you count their print edition, the third estate sunday review, they're probably ahead of me), are we doing our part to promote the ocmmunity enough?
that's a valid question. and we discussed it. it wasn't about 'rebecca, i'm going to scream at you.' i'm sorry if my word choice gave that impression. what i meant by mike getting it easier was that c.i. wouldn't address mike in the same way. it wouldn't be, 'mike, are we doing enough?' it would be 'mike, could you spotlight cedric [or whomever] a little more?'
c.i. and i are both older than mike and we've known each other for years. what i was trying to express is that we don't have to be 'if i could, please, just maybe make a point, if that's okay' with each other.
now, does gail collins of the new york times grate on your last nerve? if so go read mike on gail collins the self-amused. want a breakdown on england and to find out what's coming up in the gina & krista round-robin and polly's newsletter? go read elaine's post from this evening.
want to read about the marathon edition that seemed like it would never end sunday? read cedric's comments on it.
that's the sort of thing c.i. was talking about. (i've already linked to wally earlier in this post.) what we were talking about, trying to figure out, was how to be sure we were noting the newer site and being sure that people knew what was going on at them.
i'll close by uring every 1 to check out c.i.'s "NYT: Eric Lichtblau covers the hearing on NSA spying by focusing on Robertson's letter" even though c.i. wasn't talking about highlights for the common ills.
