Black people “go wild”, individual White persons commit isolated crimes. Black people obstruct law enforcement with the call to “stop snitchin’”, White people assert their fundamental rights to “not talk on the advice of my attorney.”

Does this trouble you? It should–and with one of the most shocking cases of racial violence in years currently on the media pages, it’s time stop the double-standard.

Progressive talker Ed Schultz, who has one of the fastest growing radio talk shows in the country, will be on Larry King Live on CNN tonight at 9 p.m. (the other guest will be former President Bill Clinton). TMV listens to a lot of talk radio when he travels and Schultz is among his favorites due to his shows variety, ability to seize on breaking news, and Schultz’s own approach which is to take callers from many viewpoints (plus his endearing detours into his big love, sports reporting..)

(Note: This post first appeared earlier this week and prompted an excellent, informative discussion among readers in the comments section. It has been updated in light of recent developments. I am particularly interested to know what your own proposed solution(s) to the Iranian nuclear crisis might be. — MS)

**********

Wednesday marked the appearance of Real Security: The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore Our Leadership in the World. It is an admirable effort by Congressional Democrats to express a national security platform that is “both tough and smart”. It is what Democrats need going forward into this year’s midterms and the next presidential election.

On Page 4, we find this: Democrats will “[r]edouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea”. Right now, let’s think about what to do about Iran.

According to the L.A. Times, “Iran is moving faster than expected and is just days from making the first steps toward enriching uranium”.

What does this mean? — “If engineers encounter no major technical problems, Iran could manufacture enough highly enriched uranium to build a bomb within three years, much more quickly than the common estimate of five to 10 years.” Which means that, all of a sudden, we’ll have to deal with this much sooner than expected.

Iran denies that it intends to build nuclear weapons (and there’s even been an anti-weapon fatwa from Iran’s religious leadership), but its unwillingness to use Russian-enriched uranium suggests otherwise. The U.S. and the major European powers “believe Iran intends to build nuclear weapons”. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a populist firebrand, has suggested that Iran could export nuclear technology to other Muslim states. And experts are seriously pondering the prospect of a nuclear Iran. All in all, not good.

Is a diplomatic solution possible? Perhaps, but is Iran even willing to give up control of its nuclear program, or at least over the enrichment of uranium? That seems unlikely, given its moves to date. Could Iran be bought off? Perhaps, but what would it take? North Korea wants aid, that much is clear, but does Iran? In addition, who would lead the diplomatic effort? Whatever consensus there is on the U.N. Security Council is fragile. “The European Union and the Americans want to exert vigorous pressure on Iran… The U.S. and EU are willing to use a U.N. procedure that gives Security Council resolutions the force of law, and to impose sanctions.” But “Russia and China would be willing to allow Iran to retain a small cascade of centrifuges for research purposes”.

Before there can be a diplomatic solution to this escalating crisis, there needs to be some sort of agreement between the U.S. and the E.U. on one side and Russia and China on the other. Without the latter, forget the former. And I mean a real agreement, a united front, something with muscle.

On Wednesday, according to The Washington Post, the U.N. Security Council “unanimously approved a statement” demanding that “Iran suspend uranium enrichment, the first time the powerful body has directly urged Tehran to clear up suspicions that it is seeking nuclear weapons”. That sounds good, but the statement “is not legally binding,” Russia and China continue to oppose sanctions, and the only real effort to do anything lies with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will “report back in 30 days on Iran’s compliance with demands to stop enriching uranium”. But then what? Will Iran already have a centrifuge up and running? Will the U.N. take a harder line? Or will there be yet more procrastination and stonewalling?

Diplomacy is my preferred option, but how long would such diplomacy take? If Iran is already close to being able to enrich its own uranium, there isn’t much time. And that — if we’re serious about stopping Iran from becoming a nuclear state (and I, for one, agree with Slate’s Fred Kaplan that a nuclear Iran is simply not an acceptable option) — brings us to the prospect of non-diplomatic measures. And that invariably means either sanctions or military action of some sort. (Back in January, Kaplan considered various military options, none of which seem terribly appealing.)

I’m less and less confident that diplomacy will work. Sanctions won’t work if the major powers can’t even get on the same page, and there’s nothing to suggest that either Russia or China would enforce sanctions at all. So are we ready to consider military options, such as tactical strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities?

The U.S. is bogged down in Iraq, to be sure, and the situation in Iraq limits America’s flexibility, but the Iranian threat simply cannot be ignored. We must come up with a way to deal with it.

And to that point…what is a centrist?

More here.

First came the storm that wiped out the city. Then came lagging restoration efforts, despite determined-sounding promises from government officials. Now comes the news from the Bush administration that due to rising costs New Orleans may not be able to be totally protected again, despite earlier statements:

The Bush administration said yesterday that the cost of rebuilding New Orleans’s levees to federal standards has nearly tripled to $10 billion and that there may not be enough money to fully protect the entire region.

Donald E. Powell, the administration’s rebuilding coordinator, said some areas may be left without the protection of levees strong enough to meet requirements of the national flood insurance program. Those areas probably would face enormous obstacles in attracting home buyers and investors willing to build there.

The news represents a shift for the administration; President Bush had pledged in the weeks after Hurricane Katrina to rebuild New Orleans “higher and better.” Now, some areas may lose out as they compete for levee protection. Powell’s announcement, in a conference call with reporters, prompted denunciations from state and local officials who said the federal government is reneging on promises to rebuild the entire region.

“This monumental miscalculation is an outrage,” said Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). “This means that, just two months before hurricane season, the Corps of Engineers informs us they cannot ensure even the minimum safety of southeastern Louisiana. This is totally unacceptable.”

The change followed a surprise announcement from the Army Corps of Engineers that the levee reconstruction project, most recently estimated at $3.5 billion, would now cost $9.5 billion if insurance-certified levees were extended throughout the region.

The Washington Post piece goes on to say that tensions between administration officials and state and local leaders in Louisiana now could not be worse:

State and local leaders said the U.S. government had broken a trust and appeared to backing away from commitments to rebuild. Louisiana officials also questioned why federal engineers are just now announcing that the task would cost $6 billion more.

“Every time we turn around, there’s a new obstacle,” said Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.). “The estimates were done for rebuilding the levees, and a number was given to the administration and to the Congress. Now all of a sudden they say they made a $6 billion mistake?”

Melancon said he wondered whether the changes reflected the comments made by officials such as House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) after the storm questioning the wisdom of rebuilding the low-lying city.

Maybe it doesn’t reflect those comments — but it seems to reflect that attitude. And, indeed, on one hand you could say that assessment is speaking realistically. On the other hand, it is a valid question: isn’t a $6 billion mistake on an estimate enough to raise both eyebrows and your neck? How was it made? Who made it? Why? And what does it say about the thoroughness and competence of those who made the earlier estimate — and those who supervise them?

Surprise. And a pleasant one. For once.

Joy. Widespread. Worldwide.

But especially at the homes of relatives of Jill Carroll and at One Norway Street, The Christian Science Monitor’s offices.

The release of the Monitor’s correspondent Jill Carroll is a rarity these days: a hostage story that truly has a happy ending that everyone can enjoy. The details of precisely how and why she was released will likely be fleshed out later: the press will want to know more.

The story has has been front page news and top-of-the-newscast news all over the world. Countless weblogs have commented on it (for a cross section of links see below). But there seem to be two key lessons drawn from this:

• Journalism has always been a perilous business. In some countries such as Mexico, murders of journalists seem to come in periodic spurts (often to those who are writing about drug cartels). Iraq is a plum assignment but one of the most deadly a journalist can draw (for fully paid staffers) or choose to cover (for special correspondents or “stringers” who are paid by the piece).

• There are seeming limits, even for terrorists. Unless some new revelation emerges about a behind-the-scenes ransom or some other kind of deal, it appears as if this hostage seizure was a big, fat miscalculation on the part of the terrorists. Why? Because Carroll was apparently a well-connected and beloved reporter who had learned the language and culture. She wasn’t just plopping in to write a few stories. She had a built in network of people in many different political camps and had impressed them with her fairness.

For The Christian Science Monitor (one of the finest U.S. newspapers, an unsung and unappreciated hero of American journalism) Carroll’s release was literally an answer to personal and corporate prayers. In an editorial the paper wrote, in part:

Ah. The sweet taste of freedom. Journalist Jill Carroll, released Thursday after nearly three months in captivity in Iraq, is savoring it. So are her family, and her colleagues here at the Monitor. But we also know this: freedom doesn’t come without commitment.

As a newspaper, the Monitor is committed to freedom of the press. Information, independently reported, is key to understanding. That principle is exactly what motivated Jill when, on assignment for this newspaper Jan. 7, the freelance journalist was kidnapped in Baghdad, and her translator, Allan Enwiya, killed.

Jill devoted herself fully to communicating the complex story of Iraq. She learned Arabic. She worked appropriately in Iraq, dressing as a Muslim woman would.

She is also one of many journalists the world over who prove their commitment to a free media by putting their lives on the line to report from dangerous places.

With 60 journalists killed in Iraq so far, that country has been the deadliest for the media in the past decade, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. This is not the first time a reporter working for the Monitor has been taken hostage.

Indeed, these are the days when it’s easy for many Americans to sit in offices, in their dens watching TV, or at computers writing blanket statement condemning the horrible, lilly-livered mainstream media. In fact, reporters often put themselves in highly perilous positions while trying to gather facts (versus writing op-ed pieces or doing sites like this blog, which is a cyberspace version of an op-ed page) on the scene.

They don’t travel with full-time bodyguards. They don’t usually have limos. They don’t ride in corporate jets. They don’t wear bullet proof vests. And journalists in Iraq don’t wear metal turtleneck sweaters to prevent or complicate beheadings.

And if, as in the case of Carroll, they have an appointment with a source, they show up — and are easy pickings if it’s a set up.

They travel with their notebooks, camcorders, tape records. But mostly they travel with a passion to find out what’s going on and get the story. And when they finally get and write the story, their stories could be “spiked” or cut due to a lack of space — but they go out and try to do the best story they can.

Depending on where they work, they keep in touch with their officers by cell phone, fax or email. But once they go out to report, they’re out there alone. Alone — and vulnerable. The Washington Post:

Jill Carroll wondered from day to day whether she would grow old or die a hostage.

“It was like falling off a cliff for three months, waiting to hit the ground,” the 28-year-old American reporter said Thursday after being released by her kidnappers.

Mostly, they travel with courage.

THERE HAS BEEN EXTENSIVE COMMENT ON CARROLL’S RELEASE. HERE’S A CROSS SECTION OF WEBLOG LINKS REPRESENTING DIFFERING VIEWPOINTS:
–The Jawa Report has a comprehensive post on it with tons of links to info, videos of Carroll in capitity, and blog links.
–Firedoglake:”And John Podhoretz is an insensitive, bloviating ass. The woman has been free for less than a day, and the wingnut attack brigade has already geared up to paint her as being mental.”
–Damien’s Semi-Daily Blog:

Jill Carroll has been released by her Muslim captors and I think the whole thing smells a little fishy…call me a party-pooper.

Nobody knows who captured her and nobody knows why she was released. My paranoid opinion is that something doesn’t ring true about the whole thing. In the first tape where she looks desperate and distraught it seems like she is acting, and her release costume, a heavy-duty, Muslim ,Vera Wang over-the-head, flowery number, seems very severe — almost as though she is making a statement. Keep in mind that she went to Iraq to write about how misunderstood the insurgents were. She certainly had an agenda to fake the whole thing, didn’t she?

–Shakespeare’s Sister:

Treated humanely by her captors. What is this world coming to? I’m sure Rove and his team of spinning elves will somehow mutate this story into a tale of daring rescue wherein Dubya himself dives out of a helicopter with nothing but a bowie knife clenched between his teeth to single-handedly rescue Carroll by… oh… sometime this afternoon. In the meantime, welcome home, Jill. A spot of sanity in this war is something we all need at this point.

–Tammy Bruce:

Let’s hope this is what worked. While it’s thrilling she’s safe, the thought of more money flowing to these maniacs enabling them to kill more innocents would be disturbing. The CSM at this point says they don’t know why she was released, and while there is some rumor of a ransom, the CSM says it was not involved if there was one. As there are more details on this I’ll bring it to you. I’m afraid (and I hope I’m wrong) that Carroll is another “hostage” who has more sympathy for the savages than for the good Iraqis trying to defeat scum that steals people off the street. Let’s hope she’s a bit more condemning about her not-captured kidnappers, and that no money changed hands.

–A Newer World:”One of the most ignorant, distasteful, and bizarre aspects of the American conservative bashing of Jill Carroll is the way in which her attackers have reacted to her wearing of the veil during television interviews after her release. It’s as if these people expected her to throw on some fatigues and wrap herself in a mission accomplished banner.”
–Articulomortus:

The world received very good news today… journalist Jill Carroll was freed! That is good news, right? Not to the Right it ain’t. Ms. Carroll says she was treated well by her captors and that puts the Cons in a pickle… Arab “Islamo-Fascists Terrorists” treated her well. Oh…She must be lying, or we look like a——s, so she must be lying! Or maybe she was in on it the whole time?

Am I defending the people who kidnapped her? Hell No! They killed her interpreter and held her since January 7th! Butttt, they didn’t waterboard her, use dogs on her, make her pile up in a human pyramid, or make her masturbate for the camera. That presents a problem for the Cons…

–The Counterterrorism Blog:

Jill Carroll’s release is a reason for joy and relief among her family and the public. Any hostage freed from the Jihadists or any other terrorists is excellent news. The next stage, now, is to understand why she was kidnapped, and what were the reasons for her release, unharmed. The study of her kidnapping and release may help in analyzing the other hostage taking situations, including the fate of those still abducted….Each word used by the ex-hostage before and after the abduction, are now of great importance to better understand the matter. Her future writings are going to tell the world more about the reasons behind the kidnapping.

–Time writes about how the Sunnis will use Carroll’s release and then puts it into perspective:

After news of her release filled the airwaves, the editor of the Christian Science Monitor, Richard Bergenheim, called for the release of all hostages in Iraq. “We hope this tide of opposition to criminal behavior will lead to the release of all other hostages as well,” he said. “The Christian Science Monitor will not let these people be forgotten. The people of Iraq, and those risking their lives to help them, have a right to live in safety.”

Indeed, on the same day that Carroll was enjoying her newly won freedom, CNN reported that 40 more Iraqis were kidnapped. And judging by recent grim events, their prospects for a happy ending like Carroll’s aren’t very good.

–A Blog For All offers a lot of links to sites raising questions about the release. One is to a news report with some journalists in Iraq talking about speculation of a ransom having been paid. The blog’s comment:

I would have to say that there would be damn good reason not to let people know that ransom was paid. It would mean that it would be open season on journalists in Iraq - knowing that the foreign media would pay for the release of their journalists, though this possibility has to be tempered by the fact that news of ransom paid to any of the kidnappers would quickly spread to other insurgent groups and thugs who want a piece of the action.

From Ramussen Reports:

Forty percent (40%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. That matches the lowest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports. The slight increase in Approval seen last weekend was clearly nothing more than statistical noise.

While people are not happy with the President, 55% say they are better off today than they were four years ago. On the immigration issue, Americans are divided over whether something should be done so that illegal immigrants can find a way to stay in this country.

It still fits an overall trend of downward with occasional upward spurts.

That’s right, but as you can see from the picture above, there aren’t enough spaces to display an additional number. In about 2 years, the clock will become obsolete. Currently the debt is approximately $8,370,000,000,000. And you don’t want to know what your share of that is…

Who wants to bet me the debt will be an issue in 2008?

More here.

(h/t: Maverick Views)

The National Journal’s Murray Waas has an eye-opening piece that is one more story suggesting that President George Bush was specifically told that some of what he said to justify the war in Iraq might not be true — and that Karl Rove & Co. have worked mightily to protect that from coming out:

Karl Rove, President Bush’s chief political adviser, cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush’s 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged if it was publicly disclosed that he had been personally warned that a key rationale for going to war had been challenged within the administration. Rove expressed his concerns shortly after an informal review of classified government records by then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley determined that Bush had been specifically advised that claims he later made in his 2003 State of the Union address — that Iraq was procuring high-strength aluminum tubes to build a nuclear weapon — might not be true, according to government records and interviews.

Hadley was particularly concerned that the public might learn of a classified one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, specifically written for Bush in October 2002. The summary said that although “most agencies judge” that the aluminum tubes were “related to a uranium enrichment effort,” the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department’s intelligence branch “believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons.”

Three months after receiving that assessment, the president stated without qualification in his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”

We have repeatedly said here that one reason why GWB’s poll numbers are sinking is due to a grave flaw with this administration: a credibility gap that now rivals the same problem faced by the administrations of Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson and Republican Richard Nixon. Each week there seems a new entry in the drip-drip-drip of stories that are virtual cautionary notes to take assertions from this administration with a big chunk of salt. MORE:

The previously undisclosed review by Hadley was part of a damage-control effort launched after former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV alleged that Bush’s claims regarding the uranium were not true. The CIA had sent Wilson to the African nation of Niger in 2002 to investigate the purported procurement efforts by Iraq; he reported that they were most likely a hoax.

The White House was largely successful in defusing the Niger controversy because there was no evidence that Bush was aware that his claims about the uranium were based on faulty intelligence. Then-CIA Director George Tenet swiftly and publicly took the blame for the entire episode, saying that he and the CIA were at fault for not warning Bush and his aides that the information might be untrue.

But, he writes, Hadley and others realized that it’d be harder to protect Bush from the political fall out surrounding his statements on the aluminum tubes:

For one, Hadley’s review concluded that Bush had been directly and repeatedly apprised of the deep rift within the intelligence community over whether Iraq wanted the high-strength aluminum tubes for a nuclear weapons program or for conventional weapons.

For another, the president and others in the administration had cited the aluminum tubes as the most compelling evidence that Saddam was determined to build a nuclear weapon — even more than the allegations that he was attempting to purchase uranium.

And finally, full disclosure of the internal dissent over the importance of the tubes would have almost certainly raised broader questions about the administration’s conduct in the months leading up to war.

Why do I get the feeling that we’re going to see some more stories like this in coming months and years — and books that’ll expand upon it with new revelations after the Bush administration has left office?

If you are knowledgable about what law and graduate schools are strong in race theory, whiteness theory, or Jewish theory, please drop me a line at The Debate Link.

The Heterosexual Hemispheres Act of 2006.

I don’t have the time to comment properly on these stories right now, but they’re all worth following. All links are to The Washington Post:



– Ehud Olmert’s Kadima Party (founded by Ariel Sharon) won the most Knesset seats in Tuesday’s Israeli elections (28 of 120). Israel uses a List-PR (proportional representation) electoral system, with seats apportioned according to the popular vote. Olmert will now look to build a governing coalition, likely with Amir Peretz’s Labour Party. (For more, see here.)



– Former Liberian President Charles Taylor has been arrested in Nigeria. He was trying to leave the country after President Olusegun Obasanjo agreed to hand him over to international authorities: “So ended, for now anyway, the political career of one of the most-wanted men in the world, a charismatic warlord-turned-president-turned-fugitive who finished the day in the custody of a U.N.-backed tribunal that has indicted him on 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his long reign of terror across this fragile region.” (For more, see here.)



– On a lighter note, London Mayor Ken Livingstone called U.S. Ambassador Robert Holmes Tuttle “a chiselling little crook” and a “car salesman” on Monday. It’s all about traffic congestion fees. (For more, see here.)

Sign of the Apocalypse #29 at The Reaction.

This is Britney. Britney Spears. On a bearskin rug. Giving birth to Baby Federline. As sculpted by Daniel Edwards. According to the Post, this piece of “art” will soon be on display at Brooklyn’s Capla Kesting Fine Art gallery. Next to “anti-abortion materials” as part of an exhibit called “Monument to Pro-Life: The Birth of Sean Preston”. Yes, that’s right. This piece of “art” comes with a pro-life message, allegedly a non-political one. Birth = life. Or so says Mr. Edwards. But it obviously is political. Abortion is political. And what we have here is the image — dare I say it, a quasi-pornographic image — of Britney giving birth within the context of a pro-life, anti-abortion protest. Dress it up all you want. That’s what it is.

Make of it what you will. There is something profoundly beautiful about the human form. And about a woman giving birth. Yet this piece of “art” seems rather tasteless, rather kitschy. And using it to express a political message makes it all the more ugly. Is it a Sign of the Apocalypse? Put all the elements together — a pop star on the decline, a culture of trash, humorously vulgar “art” (why the bearskin?), and a contrived political message — and I’m sure that it is.

You can also discuss this post on the site The Gather

How to deal with the intractable problem of HIV/AIDS in the developing world? Vivek Krishnamurthy offers a “modest proposal” here.

Even in a cruel world where terrorism automatically breeds grief stricken fatalism, there can be a happy ending: The Christian Science Monitor’s Iraq correspondent Jill Carroll has been released:

American journalist Jill Carroll, abducted in early January by gunmen in Baghdad, was released to a Sunni Arab political party in the capital Thursday morning after 82 days in captivity.

“I was treated very well. That’s important for people to know,” she said in an interview with an Arabic-speaking questioner at the headquarters of the Iraqi Islamic Party. “They never hit me, they never even threatened to hit me. I’m just happy to be free, and I want to be with my family.”

The Washington Post piece goes on to note the happy scene:
Carroll, 28, a freelance reporter working for the Christian Science Monitor, was brought to party headquarters just after 1 p.m. local time (5 a.m. EST) and was able to borrow a phone from a party member and speak with her parents and her twin sister. She also spoke with a Washington Post reporter, who drove to the office and met with her.

While Carroll was inside the party compound, U.S. military vehicles arrived, some remaining outside to provide security, others entering the main gate. She later departed with U.S. Embassy personnel.
On The Christian Science Monitor’s update page on Carroll’s plight today was a happy day as they were able to post this:

Responding to the news of Carroll’s release, Monitor editor Richard Bergenheim said, “this is an exciting day, we couldn’t be happier. We are so pleased she’ll be back with her family. The prayers of people all over the world have been answered.

The AP gives more details about her initial comment:

“I was treated well, but I don’t know why I was kidnapped,” Carroll said in a brief interview on Baghdad television.

Even though the group threatened twice to kill her in videotapes, Carroll said, “They never hit me. They never said they would hit me.”

She was wearing a light green Islamic headscarf, a gray Arabic robe and looked well.

“Obviously, I want to be with my family,” she could be heard to say under the Arabic voiceover.

“I’m just happy to be free. I want to be with my family.

Another story reports that a friend of hers knew she’d be one of the few who would be able to emerge from what seemed to be an irrevocable death sentence unscathed:

David Hutchinson, 55, said he and his family have been closely following Carroll’s story since she was kidnapped in a bloody ambush that killed her translator. The Hutchinsons are very fond of Carroll, whom they watched grow up.

“She and her sister both were terrific sort of big sisters, just role models,” he said.

A friend of Hutchinson called him at 6:30 a.m. after hearing the news on the radio. Hutchinson immediately switched on a television, and the entire family cried together at the good news.

He said that he knew all along that Carroll would be successful in eventually convincing her captors to release her.

“We always believed that she’d figure out a way to get herself free,” he said.

“She’s just really smart and really dedicated. Everything I know about Iraq, I learned about reading everything she wrote,” said Hutchinson, who would correspond via e-mail with Carroll when she was living in Iraq.

The New York Times adds this:

She appeared strong and confident and waited patiently for the interviewer to ask his questions before answering, sometimes asking for clarification. She said that she did not know where she had been held, adding that her room had a window but that it was obscured, and that she had been allowed to walk to a shower nearby. She had been able to watch television once and had seen a newspaper once, she said, but was not aware if there were any negotiations.

“All I can say right now is I am very happy,” Ms. Carroll said. “I am happy to be free and I want to be with my family.”

Ms. Carroll was dropped off today at the headquarters of the Iraqi Islamic Party, a predominantly Sunni group, in western Baghdad.

Dr. Tariq Al-Hashemi, the party’s general secretary, said in a news conference that Ms. Carroll walked in to the office dressed in Islamic garb and handed officials there a paper written in Arabic.

“The message said, ‘This is the kidnapped American journalist and we ask you to take her to an official party,’ ” Mr. Al-Hashemi said.

Mr. Al-Hashemi said that Ms. Carroll had interviewed party leaders before, but that he had no idea why she was delivered to their office. He said his group had joined in the condemnation of the kidnapping.

The Times also reports the Monitor’s editor as saying there were absolutely no negotiations for her release and no contact with her captors.

And so a saga ends, with some things to think about:

• It underscores again the fact that although the mainstream media is often under fire, its reporters are the ones who in Iraq are literally putting their necks on the line. (Writing a blog in an office and analyzing news reports is a tiny bit more secure).

• She clearly was someone who knew the language and the culture, something not all reporters master quite as successfully. Being a person considered to be of good will in Iraq can matter little (remember Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl).
• There had been enormous condemnation due to her capture from all quarters in Iraq and all over the world.
• Her capture was a mistake: it became clear that she had a track record for knowing the culture and language, trying to understand the dynamics in detail (versus accepting any preconceived perspective), had widespread support and was also a woman. Her execution would have been more than a triple whammy blow in terms of worldwide condemnation.
• As horrific as videos of captured hostages always are, some of the videos of Carroll in captivity seemed to backfire even more because it unjderscored the nature of terrorists who seize hostages and threaten to murder them: they’re bullies operating under the guise of politics on an international scale.

And Carroll? After her ordeal she’ll write a story, be sure to get a book deal that will be turned into a movie and likely get a staff job on a newspaper and put her paid-by-the-piece correspondent days behind her. And who could be more deserving and equipped given her reported track record on preparing for a news beat and her ordeal?

Here’s a timeline on Carroll’s saga.