RIVERBEND
As one of very few bloggers from Iraq, Riverbend became well-known and many people read her opinions. If you don't expect anyone to read your blog, you might not have a comments section; but, this did not seem to be the case. She came on the net with the encouragement of Salam. He had a huge following which shot him into prominence. It's reasonable to believe that she would have a large readership.
Her views coincide with opposition views within Iraq, and her efforts are directed toward anti-Coalition positions. She has no obligation to speak the truth, does not seem to search for it, perpetuates rumors; and it is a well-written drumbeat marching steadily toward pure propaganda.
Salam seemed to gravitate more to the left, after becoming “famous.” Riverbend appears to be firm in her opinions, was encouraged to blog (with expectation of wide-readership.) I doubt her views were unknown to Salam. Raed blogs within Salam’s “Where’s Raed” and might be considered to have views more similar to Riverbend. Raed’s mother blogs. (Faiza), his sibling blogs (Khalid) and another sibling Majid edits almuajaha.com (which is supposedly a Baghdad newspaper and net access website on indymedia.com but could be just the netsite.) They know each other and it seems they know a left-wing journalist fairly well.
Are we looking at the natural spread of blog-a-maniacs; or, a slowly organizing group of blog-a-gandists? Almost everyone has a bias, but many are willing to listen to another view. I’m American; but, I can listen.
Is Riverbend. . .Hamza?
by Max
Friday, March 26, 2004
AL ZAWAHIRI
The recent attempt to catch Zawahiri appears to be a failure. Al Jazeera aired a tape (supposedly) calling for the toppling of the Pakistan government and the assassination of Musharraf. It doesn't seem to be working. There are demonstrations.
Are the people of the world recognizing that to support ANY TERRORIST, is supporting all terrorist? There is hope that this is happening. Otherwise, we (the people of the world) are making a supremely, serious, stupid mistake--which is very likely to kill us.
The recent attempt to catch Zawahiri appears to be a failure. Al Jazeera aired a tape (supposedly) calling for the toppling of the Pakistan government and the assassination of Musharraf. It doesn't seem to be working. There are demonstrations.
Are the people of the world recognizing that to support ANY TERRORIST, is supporting all terrorist? There is hope that this is happening. Otherwise, we (the people of the world) are making a supremely, serious, stupid mistake--which is very likely to kill us.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
TOO SLOW; TOO KIND; TOO CAREFUL?
It seems to be coming out that we had been very careful not to act in haste, not to kill numbers of innocents (collateral damage) on vague intelligence; and couldn't get to UBL fast enough to get him. We were not at the right place, at the right time, with the right equipment.
If I heard correctly: There was an opportunity missed. OBL and UAE meeting, UAE in large compound, OBL in tent compound, they focused on the large compound. Should have hit the small tent compound, at night when OBL returned. Waiting to hear more about this.
It seems to be coming out that we had been very careful not to act in haste, not to kill numbers of innocents (collateral damage) on vague intelligence; and couldn't get to UBL fast enough to get him. We were not at the right place, at the right time, with the right equipment.
If I heard correctly: There was an opportunity missed. OBL and UAE meeting, UAE in large compound, OBL in tent compound, they focused on the large compound. Should have hit the small tent compound, at night when OBL returned. Waiting to hear more about this.
IDIOT TALKING HEADS:
William Cohen was speaking about his concerns in 1997. Then he began saying that people comment about no attacks since 9/11. That we need to understand that they are coming again, they're already here, we aren't safe. . .(talking head rattles on and on right through the rest of Cohen's remaining paragraph or two.)
Okay! I have a controller. It's even called a "remote control." It just doesn't control the important things. Someone else decides which part of this I can hear, and which part is really important. All the news networks do this (to varying degrees) except C-SPAN which would rather show today's House of Regurgitation.
C-SPAN, you have really let me down, today! It's important, it should be live, and you should be showing it NOW. I was counting on you; YOU LET ME DOWN.
William Cohen was speaking about his concerns in 1997. Then he began saying that people comment about no attacks since 9/11. That we need to understand that they are coming again, they're already here, we aren't safe. . .(talking head rattles on and on right through the rest of Cohen's remaining paragraph or two.)
Okay! I have a controller. It's even called a "remote control." It just doesn't control the important things. Someone else decides which part of this I can hear, and which part is really important. All the news networks do this (to varying degrees) except C-SPAN which would rather show today's House of Regurgitation.
C-SPAN, you have really let me down, today! It's important, it should be live, and you should be showing it NOW. I was counting on you; YOU LET ME DOWN.
MEDIA CRACKPOTS with control
Okay, who decides what is on the news ticker? The guys in charge should be fired. Can you count the times you catch something important-looking on the news ticker and suddenly it's gone, never to appear again--at least not while I'm watching.
Commercial Time superscedes ALL! IMAGINE noticing part of the ticker news. . .
". . .HUGE EXPLOSION, BODY PARTS EVERYWHERE, in the little town of. . ." Later you find out that there was a boiler explosion at a sheep rendering plant in Pocatella, ID which tossed mutton for a mile. Well, you don't find that out for hours, or days, because they don't start the ticker at the cut for commercial, or they don't repeat the item for hours, or they don't repeat it at all.
Since they know when they are having a commerical (to the second), why don't they cut off the ticker before the last item and start it (upon return) with the next complete item. (Of course, they could always skip the commercial--snicker.)
Okay, who decides what is on the news ticker? The guys in charge should be fired. Can you count the times you catch something important-looking on the news ticker and suddenly it's gone, never to appear again--at least not while I'm watching.
Commercial Time superscedes ALL! IMAGINE noticing part of the ticker news. . .
". . .HUGE EXPLOSION, BODY PARTS EVERYWHERE, in the little town of. . ." Later you find out that there was a boiler explosion at a sheep rendering plant in Pocatella, ID which tossed mutton for a mile. Well, you don't find that out for hours, or days, because they don't start the ticker at the cut for commercial, or they don't repeat the item for hours, or they don't repeat it at all.
Since they know when they are having a commerical (to the second), why don't they cut off the ticker before the last item and start it (upon return) with the next complete item. (Of course, they could always skip the commercial--snicker.)
9/11 INV--
C-SPAN is replaying a morning interview; FOX didn't go back to the hearings; CNN was covering the hearings and left, I don't get C-SPAN III. I may have to resort to the old fashioned radio. Frustrating!
The "not-as-important" people may "let-slip" the more important information. But, it doesn't look like it will be seen live. Even C-SPAN may wait to cover testimony by the big guys. Nuts!!!
The committee is back in session and C-Span is watching the posterior of the Sgt.-at-Arms in the House. Finally, FOX is carrying the remainder of Powell.
C-SPAN is replaying a morning interview; FOX didn't go back to the hearings; CNN was covering the hearings and left, I don't get C-SPAN III. I may have to resort to the old fashioned radio. Frustrating!
The "not-as-important" people may "let-slip" the more important information. But, it doesn't look like it will be seen live. Even C-SPAN may wait to cover testimony by the big guys. Nuts!!!
The committee is back in session and C-Span is watching the posterior of the Sgt.-at-Arms in the House. Finally, FOX is carrying the remainder of Powell.
9/11 INV--General
Is there any possibility that this committee could be bi-partisan? No way! It won't happen in an election year, and the contest of appearing bi-partisan, while shooting poop-bombs, continues.
While this is happening, the average American will be acquiring information which we wouldn't get elsewhere. What? Yes, these people are under oath and may not wish to lose credibility, in public, millions watching. In short, they are less likely to like and more likely to fudge the issue, but tell the truth--if you can find it.
We will have to keep in mind that the committee is not under oath, but those who give testimony are under oath. Some facts will come out in the muck. And, there will be replays. Watching this, cuts some of the crap and middle men out of the equation. It will not be Albright said that. . .(followed by interpretation), we will hear Albright say, "This is. . ." The words will be hers, spoken through her mouth, recorded and replayed for proof and examination. This goes for Powell, too; and any others who testify.
Is there any possibility that this committee could be bi-partisan? No way! It won't happen in an election year, and the contest of appearing bi-partisan, while shooting poop-bombs, continues.
While this is happening, the average American will be acquiring information which we wouldn't get elsewhere. What? Yes, these people are under oath and may not wish to lose credibility, in public, millions watching. In short, they are less likely to like and more likely to fudge the issue, but tell the truth--if you can find it.
We will have to keep in mind that the committee is not under oath, but those who give testimony are under oath. Some facts will come out in the muck. And, there will be replays. Watching this, cuts some of the crap and middle men out of the equation. It will not be Albright said that. . .(followed by interpretation), we will hear Albright say, "This is. . ." The words will be hers, spoken through her mouth, recorded and replayed for proof and examination. This goes for Powell, too; and any others who testify.
MISSED PART--9/11 INV.
I missed part of this mornings's start of the 9/11 Investigation committe hearings. Saw some of Maleleine Albrights's testimony (under oath.) Got company. Missed much of Colin Powell's testimony, but was able to hear some. Then the committee adjourned for lunch, to come back at 1:30. C-SPAN mentioned that they would change to the House, might not come back to the Hearings. WHAT?
Frequently, C-SPAN shows important events; BUT, to change from important hearings to a bunch of babbling speech makers doesn't not seem a wise choice. The hearings are far more important. . .and even tho' it could be on C-SPAN III, I don't get that.
Fortunately, CNN and FOX seem to be carrying it--just have to suffer through the commercials and wonder what was said during the break.
I missed part of this mornings's start of the 9/11 Investigation committe hearings. Saw some of Maleleine Albrights's testimony (under oath.) Got company. Missed much of Colin Powell's testimony, but was able to hear some. Then the committee adjourned for lunch, to come back at 1:30. C-SPAN mentioned that they would change to the House, might not come back to the Hearings. WHAT?
Frequently, C-SPAN shows important events; BUT, to change from important hearings to a bunch of babbling speech makers doesn't not seem a wise choice. The hearings are far more important. . .and even tho' it could be on C-SPAN III, I don't get that.
Fortunately, CNN and FOX seem to be carrying it--just have to suffer through the commercials and wonder what was said during the break.
Monday, March 22, 2004
MADAM AMBASSADOR
Rend Al-Rahim will be the first Ambassador from Iraq to the United States after the transfer of power is completed.
C-SPAN replayed Al-Rahim's speech to CAIS, at Johns Hopkins University. It was fairly impressive. The information imparted with clear, concise, to the point; and, probably answered many of the questions the audience would ask, prior to the asking.
I didn't take notes (maybe should have) because it may be replayed again and I preferred to get an overall impression. The impression was very good.
Rend Al-Rahim will be the first Ambassador from Iraq to the United States after the transfer of power is completed.
C-SPAN replayed Al-Rahim's speech to CAIS, at Johns Hopkins University. It was fairly impressive. The information imparted with clear, concise, to the point; and, probably answered many of the questions the audience would ask, prior to the asking.
I didn't take notes (maybe should have) because it may be replayed again and I preferred to get an overall impression. The impression was very good.
Sunday, March 21, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)