Farnaz Fassihi report from IRAQ
Ok, this email is currently spreading like wildfire. Naturally I have a few items to point out. ;-)
1. If you watch the news, understand human nature, and have ever been in the “Third World” much less to the mid-east, the letter does seem completely plausible (I have been in countries that had much less terrorist activity where I would not be allowed to leave the hotel without armed security escort). However, if you meet all the above criteria, you had probably already assessed that the environment described in the letter would not be out of line as being called “The current state of affairs” before the letter was made public.
2. I haven’t been able to find the Wall Street Journal’s confirmation of authenticity anywhere except this site, can anyone else find it?
3. Regardless, of all other factors, this is a personal letter. Even though the letter may be true, and may be the current state of affairs in Iraq, it must still be treated as subjective opinion. Remember, an email leaked email from a Wall Street Journal reporter is measured to the same standard for accuracy, objectivity, and lack of conjecture any personal email you send to your friends. Which is none. Even fair and balanced reporters have opinion, and can have political affiliation, which is appropriate. This is very well suited in private letters, however, none of this could be associated with the reputation and creditability of the Wall Street Journal, since they would not print the information as news (maybe as editorial, or opinion). I’m only commenting on this item because, from the emails I’m receiving, many people seem to be making the mistake of accepting the opinion in the letter as truth if the factual items in the letter are truth.
4. Due to the convenient timing and mix of opinion and conjecture that almost perfectly match those at the center of the Democratic Parties campaign, this letter also sets off my political ploy alarm.
5. Links and some other reports/sources can be found here.
October 3rd, 2004
The New York Post has an article claiming that Farnaz Fassihi’s editor has confirmed the authenticity of the email.
October 3rd, 2004
Christian Science Monitor article confirms authenticity of email ( about half way through the article ). I consider this to be a better source than the NY Post. http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0930/dailyUpdate.html
October 3rd, 2004
Yah, but the CS Monitor is referencing the same article I cited. So far I have not been able to find anything with the Journal’s name on it that makes the statement.
October 4th, 2004
I have several thoughts as I read this, the most significant being this:
Violence in Iraq will end when the people of Iraq decide that they have had enough. While we claim to be a “civilized” society, if you track the total number of murders, auto accidents and other non-natural deaths in the US on a given day, Iraq often comes out better. Iraq is a war zone because a Dictator has been removed and the responsibility of bringing order to the chaos is up the the Iraqi people. Outside of continuing to provide training and support, the US has already done about as much as we can. Because of the absolute corruption of Saddam, and the resulting threat to world peace, I firmly beleive that we did what had to be done. We cannot however, force the Iraqi people to “want” a democratic government. They may not want to invest the blood, sweat, and tears (pardon the music reference Patrick, it was unplanned)that will be required to reach that goal. Look at our founding fathers. They were driven by a purpose. Whether you agree with that purpose or not, it did establish a democratic republic. It was at great personal cost to most of them. The US has given the Iraqi people a “New World” (one without a dictator) and a similar opportunity to rewite their destiny. The good moral people of Iraq must make the personal investment to overcome the immoral minority that would continue to foster chaos. They can contiue to feel “trapped” in their homes as this reporter writes, or they can make the personal sacrifice (which may include giving their lives) to change things. Why is this reporter not rallying the good people of Iraq to make a difference rather than trying to blast the country that has given them an opportunity to change their world?