Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (8363)	3/8/2005 4:26:41 PM
From: Suma	Read Replies (32) \| Respond to of 35834

THE GIULIANA DEBATE I can see the headline on websites like Little Green Footballs: "Schechter Defends Women." Yesterday my efforts to synthesize and add context to the breaking Giuliana Sgrena story were well received by many readers, but drew an immediate and slashing attack from the venom-spewing part of the Blogosphere. The slime squad at Little Green Footballs went after me with a vengeance. The Headline: "Schechter Defends Sgrena, Accuses US of War Crimes" Duh? And there I was, described this way: "Danny Schechter, a vituperative far-left wacko" I was attacked for showing "solidarity with the communist anti-war Italian left: Was Giuliana Sgrena Targeted?" Actually my blog is titled differently. Quite differently I asked: "Why Was Giuliana Targeted -- Or Was She?" The words "Or was she" conveniently buried in the smear. The article nominally about me then slides into an attack on Democratic Underground of which I am not a member. No matter. The little green ones note: "But it isn't discrediting Sgrena to mention her radical anti-war background; it's a simple statement of fact, obvious to anyone who reads her work. She's employed by a newspaper called Il Manifesto. It's openly communist, and has published many many articles expressing sympathy and admiration for the Iraqi mujahideen, and loathing for the US." Well actually, wouldn't you know, communists are not big Mujahideen backers -- remember the Afghan war against the USSR -- in the same way that Saddam was not Osama's homey. In fact I posted a piece quoting what Giuliana had actually written. They didn't bother to read it. I then tried to respond on their site but the technology doesn't allow it. Look at this blog and you will find a whole swarm of rightists posting all over the place. My favorite: an attempt to weave a conspiracy theory involving a rightwing Italian government, a "communist" newspaper and anti-communists. Let's see how President Bush spins today when he gives his annual State of the Terror address at the National Defense University. Does anyone know if that prestigious university has a cheerleading squad? Trick question: It's called the media. SHOULD YOU BOTHER TO RESPOND TO WACK ATTACKS? Here's what I wanted to post on the LGF site. Maybe its just as well that their software does not allow a wack job like me access: Responding to this harsh denunciation is probably masochistic at best, suicidal at worse. I have written extensively on the issues of media coverage in Iraq. My blog entry is titled: Why Was Giuliana Targeted -- Or Was She? You leave out the "Or Was She?" Why? I reported on this incident from many different points of view, citing many sources, and raising questions. In your politically polluted world, that makes me a "wacko." So be it. Then what are you as you play football with people's reputations and spew name calling? I wasn't in Iraq when this happened. Were You? The Washington Post reports today there have been many incidents like this. In my film WMD and book Embedded, I call for an independent investigation and ask WERE JOURNALISTS TARGETED? Has any network investigated? This is not a left-wing-right wing thing. An intelligence agent with an allied government was killed. A journalist was wounded. Why blame the victim for the crime. Does that bother you at all? Any time you want to have a mutually respectful debate, lets do it. Giuliana reported on prohibited weapons being used in Fallujah. Did you? An official of the (our?) Iraq Health Ministry made the same claim Friday I know it is uncomfortable to let facts get in the way of an idealogical tirade but why don't you try it? This just in: "According to the Italian Foreign Minister, quoted this morning in the Scotsman, the car carrying Giuliana Sgrena was not speeding, and was not ordered to stop, making Italy's opinion on the incident officially different from the American one. “The car was travelling at a velocity that couldn’t have been more than 40 kilometre (25 miles) per hour..." watchingthewatchers.org FORGET EASON Dan Kennedy of the Phoenix, a more centrist and well informed media writer I admire was also critical "Danny Schechter has rounded up every bit of reportage and commentary he can find on the bizarre shooting of Italian journalist Giuliana Srgena by US troops and the killing of the Italian intelligence officer who'd rescued her. "I wish Schechter wouldn't hang so much on Eason Jordan, a spineless little man who lacks the courage of his own convictions - that is, if we can even figure out what his convictions are. (According to Schechter, Jordan's current silence is bought and paid for. Very nice.) "But this is a weird and disturbing story, and it bears watching." www.bostonphoenix.com

To: Sully- who wrote (8363)	3/8/2005 4:28:58 PM
From: Suma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

I don't believe this statement at all. We’ll begin with the crucial one, which is this: is it true, as the self-styled “Communist Daily” headline puts it, that the death of Nicola Calipari was a “preemptive” and therefore premeditated, homicide? Is it true, as Rossana Rossanda writes, that the Americans were shooting “to kill,” and that Calipari’s death was “an assassination?” Can we really subscribe to the picture painted by Ms Rossanda of arrogant Yankee roughnecks, beardless and/or whisky-soused, complying with the “American maxim, ‘shoot first, ask questions later?,’ and obeying without objection the order ‘when those Italians arrive, eliminate them’?” Must we really trust Giuliana Sgrena’s feelings when she tells us that her abductors were very probably right when they told her, “the Americans don’t want you to go back,” adding her own comment that they - the Americans again - “don’t want our work to show what Iraq has become with the war, despite the so-called elections.” (As if the U.S. media publishes whatever the Pentagon says or, if that’s how things stand, as if all American journalists were also in mortal danger; as for the Iraqi elections that shouldn’t be called elections, what does Ms Sgrena think they should be called?). To continue, what might be the “information” in Ms Sgrena’s possession that, according to her life partner Pier Scolari, could justify an assassination by the Americans determined not to see it published? Finally, are we really to believe that the Italians’ car was hit by “400 bullets, a storm of projectiles” (Mr Scolari)? Are we really to believe Giuliana Sgrena when she says that she personally picked “handfuls of bullets” off the seat, but that, in this premeditated rain of fire from an armored vehicle against an automobile with no armor plating, only one passenger actually died? This sounds more SANE. To us, at least, these look like reasonable questions. It seems to us equally reasonable to wonder in conclusion that if Washington had been determined that the Italian journalist should die, why - for her and our good fortune - did she survive? What caused the plot to abort? And why were two Italians actually left alive to bear witness to the attack? Let it be clear that it is quite possible that each of these questions has a satisfactory answer. But if that is the case, we hope that today, when heads are cooler, politicians and commentators from all parties will devote their attention to finding those answers. Because if we want to engage in a trial of strength with the U.S., we certainly can, but in the knowledge that it will not be won for us by emotions and strong words.