Friday, May 06, 2005
Cori Dauber sums it up
in one neat little kernel:
Yes. And that is why the success of the Iraqi elections came as a surprise to everyone except the people who were actually there.
More:
Well, sure. Cori's right. But more than that, why do they keep sending these naive greenhorn reporters into Iraq? I mean, we were seeing remote control homicide bombs in Ramadi in the summer of 2003. That's almost two years ago, people! I don't think I discussed that bombing here yet (The one we know of for sure happened on or near the University in Ramadi, but there are others we strongly suspected, because of the behavior of the victim/bomber, or whatever he was.
But if CBS was, you know, actually following the conflict, they might have seen this:
http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2005/02/if-they-are-muslim-all-should-take.html
Or this incident in which the body of a suicide bomber was found with his foot tied to the car, preventing his escape.
http://www.atsnn.com/story/69270.html
Or, playing the blackmail angle, this going back all the way to 1986:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/175
That's the danger with these knuckleheads - they'll see the same ol' same ol' but they're too ignorant to understand what they're seeing, and so they're report it as some ominous new development in "an increasingly sophisticated insurgency."
Splash, out
Jason
First, NBC Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski, on Imus, discusses his recent two week long trip to Iraq. He notes (as did Col. Jim Jacobs, an MSNBC analyst who had been on earlier in the week) that the troops completely believe in the mission. But he then said that although "we" (meaning the press) focus on the bombings, 75% of their time is spent helping the Iraqis recover, and the troops see that as their mission.
This seems in some ways to return us to an earlier debate. If that's correct it seems to me to be a self-indictment of the press's performance of enormous proportions. This is one of the best reporters covering the military announcing that the choices made by the press so distort our perceptions of what the troops are doing, that the press is paying little attention to that which the troops themselves consider to be their primary mission.
http://www.rantingprofs.com/rantingprofs/2005/05/odds_ends.html
Yes. And that is why the success of the Iraqi elections came as a surprise to everyone except the people who were actually there.
More:
Last night on CBS, their reporter in Iraq ended by stating ominously that there is an entirely new threat to deal with in Iraq --
"suicide bombers detonated by remote control."
No explanation is offered.
Man, talk about not getting it. Why would "suicide" bombers be detonated by remote, pal?
Well, sure. Cori's right. But more than that, why do they keep sending these naive greenhorn reporters into Iraq? I mean, we were seeing remote control homicide bombs in Ramadi in the summer of 2003. That's almost two years ago, people! I don't think I discussed that bombing here yet (The one we know of for sure happened on or near the University in Ramadi, but there are others we strongly suspected, because of the behavior of the victim/bomber, or whatever he was.
But if CBS was, you know, actually following the conflict, they might have seen this:
http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2005/02/if-they-are-muslim-all-should-take.html
Or this incident in which the body of a suicide bomber was found with his foot tied to the car, preventing his escape.
http://www.atsnn.com/story/69270.html
Or, playing the blackmail angle, this going back all the way to 1986:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/175
That's the danger with these knuckleheads - they'll see the same ol' same ol' but they're too ignorant to understand what they're seeing, and so they're report it as some ominous new development in "an increasingly sophisticated insurgency."
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
Post a Comment
