---

From:  "Ben Christianson" <benchristianson@movetenol.com>
Subject:  Your response is needed Bob
Date:  Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:36:50 -0500
>Bob, the ringtones are now ready
>for you to download. Please do so now
>before they expire here soon.
>Thank you
>
>http://movetenol.com/dern/
>
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Gina Kolestein
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>BeRemovedHere http://movetenol.com
>oneEightteen
>SixxxteenTTTHIRTTY
>thurteaethST
>BOWL DER CO
>80301
>
>I pray for Jill's safety.
>
>UPDATE JANUARY 11
>
>Fellow journalists in Baghdad rally to help find Jill
>
>TIME story by Christopher Allbritton
>
>At Slate, Jack Shafer, emotion about a fellow journalist removed, asks how long is long enough for the media to black out a kidnapping story:
>I know it's easy for me to meditate about this topic from the safety of my Washington office while journalists labor under the threat of death every day in Iraq. But the questions remain. If the press should spike news to help a colleague, how long an interval is decent? Should it be 48 hours, as in Carroll's case? Until the local press reports the story? Until the abducted person's employer confirms the news? Until the U.S. Embassy does? Or until the kidnappers make their announcement on the Web? I don't have any easy answers, just easy questions.
>The president of Military Reporters and Editors (MRE), Sig Christenson, criticized U.S. media outlets late Tuesday for engaging in a two-day blackout. [Editor and Publisher]Sig Christenson asks:
>"Do we really want to put reporters in a special class when we do a story? Is it ethical to do that and is it wise?"
>
>UPDATE JANUARY 12
>
>Editor and Publisher reports that there is no news in the search for abducted journalist Jill Carroll.
>
>Comments regarding an IPS article by Brian Conley and Isam Rashid:
>
>I have to say that something doesn't jibe here, and the journalists are pointing it out. Does it strike you as odd that we would act as we did against this Sunni organization, given the nature of their status as brokers for peace throughout the war?
>.there is no known connection between the organisation and such groups, or with the abduction of Jill Carroll. The U.S. forces apparently acted on a tip-off from one Iraqi....It is difficult to understand why the United States would single out the Association of Muslim Scholars as an initial target in the investigation of Jill Carroll's abduction. The organisation has condemned the taking of hostages in Iraq. It has opposed the political process under the occupation, but has continued to call for peace.
>Read the following:
>Through the raid, the offices of the Association at the mosque were ransacked. Witnesses said they found graffiti by way of stylized crosses drawn with thick markers.
>If our soldiers did this, do we think it's something they should be allowed to do? I certainly think it's detracting from the overall mission and giving the appearance of an admission that we are fighting the Holy War so many of the Islamic fundamentalists wish to think they are fighting. How will this serve to better protect Jill Carroll, who freelanced regularly for the Christian Science Monitor?
>"If the occupier would leave, Iraqis would live as brothers.
>
>Generals Split on Iraq
>
>There seems to be a split in key ideas about strategy between top military commanders in Iraq. How well will this serve America's mission? Who's pulling the strings? Which opinion will be gagged and muffled? If this public split in philosophy does not die down, who will back down? Is it a civil war in Iraq or not? If it's not a civil war happening in Iraq today (regardless of the US support/presence there) what is it? Why is the President and his administration having such a hard time explaining the "who's who' categories of those who are killing our troops and one another in Iraq? It gets increasingly complicated. The storyline behind the war is cracking. Our emotional strings that have been pulled by the Commander in Chief about the glories of freedom and democracy in Iraq are being met with public discord as those strings begin to fray under the tension of a strikingly different tune. Iraqis aren't only killing us. They're killing each other. On a daily basis.
>
>The current split in the Generals' publically-stated views, along with the knowledge that J. Paul Bremer tried to warn the Secretary of Defense and the President that we strategically had it very wrong from the very beginning of this war in Iraq, causes me to realize that, for whatever reason, one of these Generals isn't being forthcoming enough.
>
>When we decide to pull out of Iraq, what are we going to leave behind? How will we redeploy? There has never been a day of real security in Iraq since we got there. How long can our military stay there and pretend that there is a real goal for success and peace in their sights? What about the ethical aspects - being responsible for what we have done? We broke a nation - and flattened its civil structure - and we are going to let them foot their own bill for reconstruction? This does not make me a proud American.
>
>The Iraq war has not only loosened a regime in a foreign country, it has loosened the glue of unity among citizens at home. We're told, by political leaders like Senator Joe Lieberman, that questioning the credibility of our own President is damaging to our security, but don't we we have the duty to stand up for what we think is right? We've learned important lessons by looking back on world history, when there have been many leaders who should have had their credibility questioned much sooner - before great damage was done. How can we trust in men who employ politics and war as a means to retain power rather than acting cooperatively with the world toward a safer world?