The American Spectator

At Large

(Page 3 of 4)

br> IT IS EARLY SUNDAY morning in Baghdad. The Referendum took place yesterday and all the Iraqis I know are immensely proud of both the turnout, and the peaceful way it was conducted. My friend Ferras said to me this morning: "I hope George Bush is as proud of us as I am -- and I hope he TELLS us that!" /p>

It is still very peaceful here this Sunday morning. However, jets have been roaring overhead non-stop all morning. They are always so high that I can't see them and, for some reason, they rarely leave contrails here. The direction of the sound makes it clear the planes are headed west. That is not surprising since that is the location of Anbar province and the Syrian border, the scene of almost all the trouble with the terrorists and foreign invaders.

Yesterday, I saw a short report on the AP wire that mentioned "border tension" involving U.S. and Syrian troops near Al-Qaim on the Syrian border. I have heard no more about that, but I wonder to myself if all this air activity is somehow connected to that report.

Unfortunately, today's media lack an Ernie Pyle or a Margueritte Higgins. They were reporters who would find some way to get the story of what is going on in the west back to their readers. I suspect today's reporters have become so accustomed to creature comforts that they are not too willing to move around without a full complement of make-up men and hairstylists, both in short supply out in Anbar. The "embed policy" is still in effect in Iraq, but the number of reporters with the courage to embed and go out has really dwindled to a very few since the heady days right after the war started. One of them is a young woman reporter for CNN named Jennifer Eccleston. She is one very gutsy lady who, a few days ago, did a series of reports about night-time operations with U.S. Marines near Haditha in the west. I find her reports insightful and well written. She also includes material and observations I don't hear from any of the other reporters.

I recall first seeing her on Fox News some years ago reporting from Liberia when the barbarous Charles Taylor was in charge there. I wondered at the time what father would let his young daughter be in such a dangerous place. I finally decided I shouldn't worry about her anymore simply because she was obviously at the front of the line the day that God was passing out the trait called "guts." My only advice to Eccleston is she should demand CNN provide her with a helmet that fits!!

I keep looking for her reports today because she might still be out in the west. The media, however, are still buried in the Referendum Story even though hard news and accurate reports about election results are still very scarce. In the meantime, the jets are overhead in much larger numbers than on any occasion since I have been here. Since everything else here has been so peaceful the past two days, I am dying of curiosity as to why the jets are up there, and what they are doing. In fact, I am beginning to feel that I am entitled to an answer.

p> Sunday Afternoon br> I HAVE BEEN WAITING ALL DAY to learn what is going on in the west that has attracted so much attention all day from the U.S. Air Force. I have neither heard nor read anything. As I have said repeatedly, the media coverage of this war has been an embarrassment. Masses of jet fighters and bombers don't criss-cross Iraq all day just for the thrills it gives the pilots. /p>

A moment ago I received my daily email of the New York Times. The NYT's headline reads: "Turnout is Mixed as Iraqis Vote on New Constitution." If one reads the story it is quite obvious the headline writer did not read the article. Perhaps he was watching the baseball playoffs, or the USC-Notre Dame football game. The headline is clearly in conflict with the article. Presumably that doesn't matter as long as long as a segment of casual readership glances at the headline and says: "Turnout is mixed because the Times said so...Just as I thought, another putdown for Bush!"

The article, which by itself is an accurate account of yesterday, was written by Dexter Filkins and John Burns. These are two well-known Times reporters who are, no doubt, being paid more than two yen and a bowl of rice a day to let the world know everything that is fit to print about Iraq and the Referendum. One also wonders if anyone at the Times has the wit or the insight to realize that under the life and death conditions that exist here, having even a 30% turnout would have been remarkable. What would turnout be in the States if all the voters risked being shot at or kidnapped? Look what just two snipers were able to do to life in and around Washington, D.C. a couple of years ago!

Strangely enough, in spite of the very negative Times headline, Iraqi election workers have reported that minimum turnout has been 61%, and it could run as high as 66%.

The second lead story in the Times is about "Two Sides of the Sunni Vote: Deserted Polls and Long Lines." The article goes on at some length about the "scenes in Anbar province that reflect the fractious nature of Sunni Arab sentiments." Nicely phrased...nice use of the word "fractious." Nowhere does this article say that the total population of Anbar province is 36 people and 17 camels. No one cares a whit what happens in Anbar province! It is an absolute given that the Sunnis will win Anbar in a landslide. If the Shiites win Anbar it is they who will demand a recount!

topics:
Islam, Constitution, Military, Iraq, Iran