NationStates Jolt Archive

Newsweek has retracted its report that US officials had been committing sacrilige against the Koran today, according to CNN.
Newsweek admitted it had no evidence whatever for the report.
By running to article, Newsweek turned itself into a sleazy tabloid.
However, no one at the publication is being published for a false report that resulted in thousands of people being attacked, killed or injured around the world.
This is why I don't read Newsweek. I didn't need this to convince me, I've always considered Newsweek to be nothing more than a tabloid.

Unfortunately the retraction comes too late for the 17 people who were brutally killed as a result. Deaths resulting from a false story, is something that you just can't retract.

Deaths resulting from false claims to go to "war" resulted in the deaths of more than 2000 Americans in Iraq... so, does that mean the US government is also a "sleazy tabloid?"

its not as bad as the 'lie' about WMD....

lets face it, Newsweek havent even admitted it was a lie (unless they did today or something, i havent read that). All theyve said is that their source is now saying hes not sure where he read it, but it was in a report somewhere. just casts a bit of doubt onto the story, but it doesnt throw it out the window completely.

if i subscribed to newsweek i would have cancelled my subscription today.

their mealymouthed half-assed retraction makes it sound like they are only doing it because they are being pressured by the government to do so.

they should own up to their own mistakes and "take it like a man". their irresponsible journalism has lead to the deaths of 17 people. someone should at least be out of a job.

and what does anyone else's mistake (or lie) have to do with it? does the lack of wmd in iraq make the newsweek story more or less true? does it make them less culpable? does it make those people any less dead?

if i subscribed to newsweek i would have cancelled my subscription today.

their mealymouthed half-assed retraction makes it sound like they are only doing it because they are being pressured by the government to do so.

they should own up to their own mistakes and "take it like a man". their irresponsible journalism has lead to the deaths of 17 people. someone should at least be out of a job.

and what does anyone else's mistake (or lie) have to do with it? does the lack of wmd in iraq make the newsweek story more or less true? does it make them less culpable? does it make those people any less dead?
apparently its supposed to make them innocent.
Problem is that the US was working with bad intell, where as Newsweek was a newsmagazine that never checked its facts, and relied on just one person who very likely hated America and wanted to incite violence against Americans.
I think the reason they did it, was because the libs who run it, wanted very hard, for the accusation to be true, even if there was no evidence.

apparently its supposed to make them innocent.
Problem is that the US was working with bad intell, where as Newsweek was a newsmagazine that never checked its facts, and relied on just one person who very likely hated America and wanted to incite violence against Americans.

Mmm, such exquisite hypocrisy.

apparently its supposed to make them innocent.
Problem is that the US was working with bad intell, where as Newsweek was a newsmagazine that never checked its facts, and relied on just one person who very likely hated America and wanted to incite violence against Americans.
I think the reason they did it, was because the libs who run it, wanted very hard, for the accusation to be true, even if there was no evidence.
did you not see the bit where they didnt say the comment about the Koran being desecrated was wrong?

Newsweek can retract all it wants, it is not really going to help the situation. As I was reading the news today it is apparent that most Muslim leaders will not believe the retraction. They simply claim that the US government forced Newsweek to make the retraction and that the story is still true.
With one, stupid little blurb in a small article Newsweek has succeeded in destroying what mediocre level of credibility the US had built in Afghanistan and many other Muslim countries.
They have also given a ton of ammunition for those in our society who will push for greater control of the press. I think other journalists should be crucifying the Newsweek staff. Bloggers, bless their fiendish little brains, are the only winners here. They stand to gain even more legitemacy and power in the information world.

did you not see the bit where they didnt say the comment about the Koran being desecrated was wrong?
it was a baseless unsubtantiated opinion that they refuse to admit as such.
That is why they are still under pressure. but they will cave in the couple of days and forced to admit there was no source and that they very likely made the whole thing up.

Newsweek can retract all it wants, it is not really going to help the situation. As I was reading the news today it is apparent that most Muslim leaders will not believe the retraction. They simply claim that the US government forced Newsweek to make the retraction and that the story is still true.
With one, stupid little blurb in a small article Newsweek has succeeded in destroying what mediocre level of credibility the US had built in Afghanistan and many other Muslim countries.
They have also given a ton of ammunition for those in our society who will push for greater control of the press. I think other journalists should be crucifying the Newsweek staff. Bloggers, bless their fiendish little brains, are the only winners here. They stand to gain even more legitemacy and power in the information world.
It won't go that far. Freedom of the Press is codified in the US Constitution. A more likely alternative is that Newsweek's parent company ends up losing a lot of money from the publication.

As for the damage to US reputation, that is recoverable.

apparently its supposed to make them innocent.
Problem is that the US was working with bad intell, where as Newsweek was a newsmagazine that never checked its facts, and relied on just one person who very likely hated America and wanted to incite violence against Americans.
I think the reason they did it, was because the libs who run it, wanted very hard, for the accusation to be true, even if there was no evidence.

And apparently this is supposed to make the US innocent again.
Problem is that Newsweek was working with a bad source, where as Bush and Co. were warmongering pricks who never checked thier facts, and relied on incredibly shaky intel which they presented as completely accurate, because they hated the idea of both not having McDemocracy spread to every corner of the globe and that there was a country who's natural resources were not being sucked from them by American multinationals, and wanted to incite violence against Iraqis.
I think the reason they did it was because the Neo-cons who run Bush and Co. wanted very hard for the accusations to be true, even if there was no evidence.

You see, I can do it to. But I give both of us a cookie for spinning two very similar situations and making one seem less bad than the other.
EDIT: okay, one 17 people died, whereas the other, thousands upon thousands. What I mean, with their similarities of badness is the act of reporting the "truth" based on real crappy sources.

It won't go that far. Freedom of the Press is codified in the US Constitution. A more likely alternative is that Newsweek's parent company ends up losing a lot of money from the publication.

As for the damage to US reputation, that is recoverable.

I don't think they will drop the 1st amendment or anything , but the cry for control will be fueled and the ease of control increased.
Sure our reputation in recoverable, but not for awhile and not without quite a few more people being killed.

People throw the word "warmonger" around far too much. It is losing what potency it once had. Oh, you think we should react in a military way to a threat? WARMONGER!!! YOU LOVE WAR AND BLOOD!! WARMONGER!!!
Please people, :rolleyes:

Let me guess - another instance where a conservative fails to understand what they have read, or never read anything and is mouthing some pundits talkign points. :rolleyes:

And apparently this is supposed to make the US innocent again.
Problem is that Newsweek was working with a bad source, where as Bush and Co. were warmongering pricks who never checked thier facts, and relied on incredibly shaky intel which they presented as completely accurate, because they hated the idea of both not having McDemocracy spread to every corner of the globe and that there was a country who's natural resources were not being sucked from them by American multinationals, and wanted to incite violence against Iraqis.
I think the reason they did it was because the Neo-cons who run Bush and Co. wanted very hard for the accusations to be true, even if there was no evidence.

You see, I can do it to. But I give both of us a cookie for spinning two very similar situations and making one seem less bad than the other.
EDIT: okay, one 17 people died, whereas the other, thousands upon thousands. What I mean, with their similarities of badness is the act of reporting the "truth" based on real crappy sources.

we are not talking about the US government.
We are talking bout lib magazine that publishes false stories that get people killed. Let us not forget that just before the Iraq war, Newsweek was one of the media outlets reporting that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Please keep this on point. Its bout newsweek, not Bush and company

People throw the word "warmonger" around far too much. It is losing what potency it once had. Oh, you think we should react in a military way to a threat? WARMONGER!!! YOU LOVE WAR AND BLOOD!! WARMONGER!!!
Please people, :rolleyes:

Well, in this day and age where it is no longer neccessary to solve every problem by beating each other with sticks (or cruise missles, whatever), a person who is willing to go to war to solve an issue that wouldn't require a war is a warmonger. We may not be dealing with Jenghis Khan Temujin, but still, the term is becoming broader as the spectrum of just wars becomes slimmer. They have an inversely proportional relationship, IMO. *Yes, I can check off "using a math/physics term in real life" off my list of things to do before I die.

i hate the war in iraq as much as anybody but what does it have to do with newsweek's irresponsible reporting?

the mexican-american war was nothing but imperialist land grabbing, does THAT excuse newsweek?

Let me guess - another instance where a conservative fails to understand what they have read, or never read anything and is mouthing some pundits talkign points. :rolleyes:
you must talking about yourself.

but they will cave in the couple of days and forced to admit there was no source and that they very likely made the whole thing up.
:confused:
Err, you an't very well use that as an argument against them until it actually happens...
Unless you've developed some method of seeing the future?

Thread #3 on this subject and counting!

Well, in this day and age where it is no longer neccessary to solve every problem by beating each other with sticks (or cruise missles, whatever), a person who is willing to go to war to solve an issue that wouldn't require a war is a warmonger. We may not be dealing with Jenghis Khan Temujin, but still, the term is becoming broader as the spectrum of just wars becomes slimmer. They have an inversely proportional relationship, IMO. *Yes, I can check off "using a math/physics term in real life" off my list of things to do before I die.
Given the information we had, and the fact that france was helping Saddam rebuild his military and possibly his WMD program, it was only a matter of a year or more before Saddam was abe to threaten his neighbors again.
If the French had agreed to stop all illegal trade with Iraq like they were asked repeatedly too, there would not have been an Iraq invasion. Instead the french, together with China encouraged Saddam's intransigence.
Some one who goes to war to prevent his nation being attacked with WMD's from a nation that supported terrorism, who in the process brings freedom to a people who desperately prayed for it day in and day out, is hardly a warmonger.
If that was the case, then why the heck aren't we in Ukraine or in Lebanon or Kazakkstan or even China for that matter? If the point was to force american style democracy on the world, I would think we would have started in our own backyard and invaded Venezuela and Cuba first.

Deaths resulting from false claims to go to "war" resulted in the deaths of more than 2000 Americans in Iraq... so, does that mean the US government is also a "sleazy tabloid?"


Dont forget the tens of thousands of iraqis.

Sleazy tabloid is too good a moniker for the american mass murderers.

Thread #3 on this subject and counting!
where are the other 3?

Well, in this day and age where it is no longer neccessary to solve every problem by beating each other with sticks (or cruise missles, whatever), a person who is willing to go to war to solve an issue that wouldn't require a war is a warmonger. We may not be dealing with Jenghis Khan Temujin, but still, the term is becoming broader as the spectrum of just wars becomes slimmer. They have an inversely proportional relationship, IMO. *Yes, I can check off "using a math/physics term in real life" off my list of things to do before I die.

And in the past it was neccessary to solve every problem by beating each other with sticks? Things have really changed?
A warmonger is someone who loves war, who fights for no reason other than to hear the sound of the drums, as it were.
There is no major leader living today who fits that bill. It is like calling every person who is against affirmative action a racist. It is just name calling.
I don't think the spectrum of just wars has become slimmer, just the cynicism of people has become more deeply entrenched.

Dont forget the tens of thousands of iraqis.

Sleazy tabloid is too good a moniker for the american mass murderers.
this is about the tabloid Newsweek, not the US government or the Bush administration. Take your anti american diatribes elsewhere.

Unfortunately the retraction comes too late for the 17 people who were brutally killed as a result. Deaths resulting from a false story, is something that you just can't retract.
I agree, but seriously, this is the fifth damn thread about this exact morsel of misnews.

this is about the tabloid Newsweek, not the US government or the Bush administration. Take your anti american diatribes elsewhere.


I fail to see how the newspaper caving to the government and retracting its story is confusing to anyone, whittier.

Americans should pay for the wrongs they have done, no muzzling of the press!

I fail to see how the newspaper caving to the government and retracting its story is confusing to anyone, whittier.

Americans should pay for the wrongs they have done, no muzzling of the press!

You really believe that, don't you? heh ehe.

I fail to see how the newspaper caving to the government and retracting its story is confusing to anyone, whittier.

Americans should pay for the wrongs they have done, no muzzling of the press!
and the french, the british, the germans and the chinese, and the russians shouldn't pay the wrongs they've done? How about all the damage the European colonial powers caused around the world. Even today, France acts very imperialistically in Africa going in and ousting governments they don't like. Which is the main reason Africa is still the poorest place on earth. Cause the europeans won't stay out of African affairs.

its not as bad as the 'lie' about WMD....

lets face it, Newsweek havent even admitted it was a lie (unless they did today or something, i havent read that). All theyve said is that their source is now saying hes not sure where he read it, but it was in a report somewhere. just casts a bit of doubt onto the story, but it doesnt throw it out the window completely.
Where are the debaters that argue that this is bad logic? Oh, wait that only applies to Tom DeLay vs the Democratic party.

When it comes to Newsweek, there is an idea that seems pretty much lost today that "discretion is the better part of valor". This means that they might have held the story right or wrong because it could be so inflammatory. Especially given the dubious nature of the source(s).

newsweek is just saying this now hoping it will calm people, i am 100% secure that the quran is being pissed on by guantanamo guards, people who have gotten out of that prison/deathcamp say that that is the case

by the way death to american imperialisam
(to you american ppl this means i dont hate you or want you killed, but i have issues with you empire killing people)

Where are the debaters that argue that this is bad logic? Oh, wait that only applies to Tom DeLay vs the Democratic party.

When it comes to Newsweek, there is an idea that seems pretty much lost today that "discretion is the better part of valor". This means that they might have held the story right or wrong because it could be so inflammatory. Especially given the dubious nature of the source(s).
Wow. Are you seriously suggesting that we squash news because it will make us look bad?

Wow. Are you seriously suggesting that we squash news because it will make us look bad?
No, I'm seriously suggesting that media outlets suppress stories where an outcome like this is predictable. Regardless of the truth. By the way, this wasn't the story. This whole flushing incident took up a line or two in a story that ran several pages. Yes, indeed, I do think Newsweek should have left out the Koran-flushing incident, especially given the dubious nature of the source.

No, I'm seriously suggesting that media outlets suppress stories where an outcome like this is predictable. Regardless of the truth. By the way, this wasn't the story. This whole flushing incident took up a line or two in a story that ran several pages. Yes, indeed, I do think Newsweek should have left out the Koran-flushing incident, especially given the dubious nature of the source.
Farwell acountability*, farwell freedom of the press, farwell freedom in general.

Makes you wonder what we thought was so bad about all those fascists we spent so much time fighting...

*Oh yeah, I see you trying to turn that one around, except that Newsweek did in fact check it's source with the DoD and they refuted other parts but not that one. It's only when the source itself came back and recanted that they voluntarily said that they needed to investigate the claim more. NOT that it didn't happen. Seems like they took responsability.

newsweek is just saying this now hoping it will calm people, i am 100% secure that the quran is being pissed on by guantanamo guards, people who have gotten out of that prison/deathcamp say that that is the case

by the way death to american imperialisam
(to you american ppl this means i dont hate you or want you killed, but i have issues with you empire killing people)
please leave

Farwell acountability*, farwell freedom of the press, farwell freedom in general.

Makes you wonder what we thought was so bad about all those fascists we spent so much time fighting...

*Oh yeah, I see you trying to turn that one around, except that Newsweek did in fact check it's source with the DoD and they refuted other parts but not that one. It's only when the source itself came back and recanted that they voluntarily said that they needed to investigate the claim more. NOT that it didn't happen. Seems like they took responsability.
Well, I was expecting to much for you to understand discretion. It's a quality that comes with maturity. It isn't for the government to enforce. So put a lid on all your fond farewells.

please leave

Its vastly more effective to simply laugh at, belittle, or use sarcasm to supress the ramblings of others. Simply trying to shut them up only stirs the passions of the heart, the more forceful the "shut up" the more forceful the rejection.

I know it is tempting to simply remove those who seem too far gone from our own opinions; but one should remember that this is a public forum, we are merely participants.

Your "Please leave" does nothing. Why should this person even listen to you? If they actually believe what they say, they should stay and show evidence, facts, even anecdotes to back up their statements. None of us actually know what's been going on in Gitmo with any certainty; none of us have any real facts about the case.

Such allegations should be thuroughly considered before we dismiss them; for they are grave accusations. To dismiss them indicates that we would rather be ignorant and blind than have our authorities questioned. We all know how foolish that is.

Its vastly more effective to simply laugh at, belittle, or use sarcasm to supress the ramblings of others. Simply trying to shut them up only stirs the passions of the heart, the more forceful the "shut up" the more forceful the rejection.

I know it is tempting to simply remove those who seem too far gone from our own opinions; but one should remember that this is a public forum, we are merely participants.

Your "Please leave" does nothing. Why should this person even listen to you? If they actually believe what they say, they should stay and show evidence, facts, even anecdotes to back up their statements. None of us actually know what's been going on in Gitmo with any certainty; none of us have any real facts about the case.

Such allegations should be thuroughly considered before we dismiss them; for they are grave accusations. To dismiss them indicates that we would rather be ignorant and blind than have our authorities questioned. We all know how foolish that is.
He wasn't even on topic. he was rambling bout how evil the US is.

Its vastly more effective to simply laugh at, belittle, or use sarcasm to supress the ramblings of others. Simply trying to shut them up only stirs the passions of the heart, the more forceful the "shut up" the more forceful the rejection.

I know it is tempting to simply remove those who seem too far gone from our own opinions; but one should remember that this is a public forum, we are merely participants.

Your "Please leave" does nothing. Why should this person even listen to you? If they actually believe what they say, they should stay and show evidence, facts, even anecdotes to back up their statements. None of us actually know what's been going on in Gitmo with any certainty; none of us have any real facts about the case.

Such allegations should be thuroughly considered before we dismiss them; for they are grave accusations. To dismiss them indicates that we would rather be ignorant and blind than have our authorities questioned. We all know how foolish that is.
As for the accusation in this case, it has been thoroughly discredited.

i totally believe the Qu'ran is being defiled in the privacy of American camps. only thing is that i'm not against it for the sake of getting information out of detainees.

newsweek, however, is obviously just trying to prevent a crisis, especially in the sense of calming down those 300 or so afghan clerics who threatened to mount a holy war against the USA if we don't hand over 'those responsible.'

newsweek did a half-assed job of journalism right here. either they should have stated the truth and stuck with it for truth's sake or they should have realised what their article could do and not published it. its their fault.

newsweek is just saying this now hoping it will calm people, i am 100% secure that the quran is being pissed on by guantanamo guards, people who have gotten out of that prison/deathcamp say that that is the case

by the way death to american imperialisam
(to you american ppl this means i dont hate you or want you killed, but i have issues with you empire killing people)

So do most Americans. Sadly the people who don't believe that its happening and the people who don't care or like that it's happening adds up to a greater percentage of the population than those who know it's happening and don't like it. Just think of that clip of Dubya walking around the oval office checking for WMD's under couch cushions and you have a pretty good idea of American political apathy and ignorance.

Well, I was expecting to much for you to understand discretion. It's a quality that comes with maturity. It isn't for the government to enforce. So put a lid on all your fond farewells.
How delightfully condicending.

You know what? I want to know if people representing me are acting in this matter. I want it to be public, I want those who would do something like that in my name held responsable.

Where's your call for descretion on the people that would do something so wrong that it would cause riots? Why is it more wrong for our media to call it out than it is to DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Maturity takes responsability for what it does, it doens't place it on 'who told.'

How delightfully condicending.

You know what? I want to know if people representing me are acting in this matter. I want it to be public, I want those who would do something like that in my name held responsable.

Where's your call for descretion on the people that would do something so wrong that it would cause riots? Why is it more wrong for our media to call it out than it is to DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Maturity takes responsability for what it does, it doens't place it on 'who told.'
because it never happened. They made it up.

because it never happened. They made it up.

uh... no. not quite.

because it never happened. They made it up.
If you'd been following along with the dozen other threads on the subject, or had been intellectually honest enough to link an article with your claim, you'd know by now that:
Newsweek checked their story with the DoD and they refuted other parts but not the Koran part.
Other news outlets where already running that part of the story.
THE SOURCE and not Newsweek came to them and said that it was unsure AFTER the story was published so Newsweek was honest enough to say they HAD TO LOOK INTO IT FURTHER and not that THEY MADE IT UP as you claim.

because it never happened. They made it up.


Why then is there a mountain of witness testimony that it did?

The american government is consummate in its lies.

If you'd been following along with the dozen other threads on the subject, or had been intellectually honest enough to link an article with your claim, you'd know by now that:
Newsweek checked their story with the DoD and they refuted other parts but not the Koran part.
Other news outlets where already running that part of the story.
THE SOURCE and not Newsweek came to them and said that it was unsure AFTER the story was published so Newsweek was honest enough to say they HAD TO LOOK INTO IT FURTHER and not that THEY MADE IT UP as you claim.
actually no they didn't check.
It is very unlikely that Newsweek even asked about the Koran part.
Other news outlets were running the Koran part because they got from Newsweek first.
The Source? What source? There was no source. They made that up to.
The fact is they reported a malicious lie as if it was fact.

actually no they didn't check.
It is very unlikely that Newsweek even asked about the Koran part.
Other news outlets were running the Koran part because they got from Newsweek first.
The Source? What source? There was no source. They made that up to.
The fact is they reported a malicious lie as if it was fact.
the fact is that what you are spouting is not a fact

Why then is there a mountain of witness testimony that it did?

The american government is consummate in its lies.
there are no witnesses saying that it did. Unless you count all the anti american protestors who never even set foot in Guantanamo.
US soldiers are very respectful of other people's religions.
They don't go around abusing holy books. That's a fact.
What Newsweek reported was not fact. It was malicious propaganda.

I would take the word of the military over the word of some liberal anti bush reporter walking around with an agenda.

there are no witnesses saying that it did. Unless you count all the anti american protestors who never even set foot in Guantanamo.
US soldiers are very respectful of other people's religions.
They don't go around abusing holy books. That's a fact.
What Newsweek reported was not fact. It was malicious propaganda.

US soldiers are almost all good men and women serving their country, but there are always a few bad apples. Recently, several at the Mexican border were arrested for taking bribes to allow Cocaine into the country. Other coke smugglers were arrested in Columbia. MPs and Soldiers at Abu Ghraib have commited acts as lewd as sexual assault on prisoners. Soldiers in Iraq have fired on civilians without discrimination.

Anyway, an order is an order. Destroying something that makes up a person's livelihood is a very effective way to make them talk; why not use it?

oh, and 'malicious propaganda' my ass.

actually no they didn't check.
It is very unlikely that Newsweek even asked about the Koran part.
Other news outlets were running the Koran part because they got from Newsweek first.
The Source? What source? There was no source. They made that up to.
The fact is they reported a malicious lie as if it was fact.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20050515/ts_nm/religion_afghan_newsweek_dc

Newsweek's Whitaker said that when the magazine first heard of the Koran allegation from its source, staff approached two Defense Department officials. One declined to comment, while the other challenged a different aspect of the May 9 story but did not dispute the Koran charge.

The magazine said other news organizations had already aired charges of Koran desecration based "only on the testimony of detainees."

"We believed our story was newsworthy because a U.S. official said government investigators turned up this evidence. So we published the item," Whitaker said.

"Our original source later said he couldn't be certain about reading of the alleged Koran incident in the report we cited," he wrote.

So...wheres the source for you?

US soldiers are almost all good men and women serving their country, but there are always a few bad apples. Recently, several at the Mexican border were arrested for taking bribes to allow Cocaine into the country. Other coke smugglers were arrested in Columbia. MPs and Soldiers at Abu Ghraib have commited acts as lewd as sexual assault on prisoners. Soldiers in Iraq have fired on civilians without discrimination.

Anyway, an order is an order. Destroying something that makes up a person's livelihood is a very effective way to make them talk; why not use it?

oh, and 'malicious propaganda' my ass.
American soldiers in Iraq are not firing at civilians indiscrimately. those civilians are terrorists. Just because they wear civilian attire does not mean they are civilians.

The people you speak of in the other cases represent 1 soldier for 20,000.

Who is this source then? In situations like these, source/reporter prevelige doesn't apply. If there really is a source that made the claim, they can force Newsweek to disclose his identity.

Who is this source then? In situations like these, source/reporter prevelige doesn't apply. If there really is a source that made the claim, they can force Newsweek to disclose his identity.
So, we're going with jamming your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalalalalaIcan'thearyouIcan'thearyou" then?

American soldiers in Iraq are not firing at civilians indiscrimately. those civilians are terrorists. Just because they wear civilian attire does not mean they are civilians.

The people you speak of in the other cases represent 1 soldier for 20,000.

you are not only retarded and wrong but also acknowledging my point that there are bad apples.

you are not only retarded and wrong but also acknowledging my point that there are bad apples.
resorting to flaming now are you?

resorting to flaming now are you?

better a flamer than an idiot. stop trying to take attention away from your own lack of an argument.

Who is this source then? In situations like these, source/reporter prevelige doesn't apply. If there really is a source that made the claim, they can force Newsweek to disclose his identity.
in the UK, the BBCs source for saying that the evidence for war on Iraq was exaggerated, Dr. David Kelly, was revealed. he killed himself two days later

sources dont like being revealed. a good reporter/detective/whatever always protects his sources and never reveals them

in the UK, the BBCs source for saying that the evidence for war on Iraq was exaggerated, Dr. David Kelly, was revealed. he killed himself two days later

sources dont like being revealed. a good reporter/detective/whatever always protects his sources and never reveals them
in this case, an undisclosed source, cannot be relied to give facts. And if he exists, he needs to be placed on trial for the deaths and destruction he has caused.

in the UK, the BBCs source for saying that the evidence for war on Iraq was exaggerated, Dr. David Kelly, was revealed. he killed himself two days later

sources dont like being revealed. a good reporter/detective/whatever always protects his sources and never reveals them

the standard journalistic code of ethics is that you never, ever reveal your sources, even if you have to go to jail for their protection. my mothers a journalist/writer and has been telling me this for years. the guy who revealed the cia agent's identity was a coward.

in this case, an undisclosed source, cannot be relied to give facts. And if he exists, he needs to be placed on trial for the deaths and destruction he has caused.

Bush had an undisclosed source who told him Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Your own government relies on undisclosed sources. Stop ignoring reality.

the standard journalistic code of ethics is that you never, ever reveal your sources, even if you have to go to jail for their protection. my mothers a journalist/writer and has been telling me this for years. the guy who revealed the cia agent's identity was a coward.
then they need to go to jail if they refuse to disclose.

Bush had an undisclosed source who told him Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Your own government relies on undisclosed sources. Stop ignoring reality.
this is not about Bush and stop acting like it is. This is about the malicious negligence on the part of NewsWeek. This is not about Iraq.

then they need to go to jail if they refuse to disclose.

the whole point of having undisclosed sources is that people don't get in trouble for informing the public of things they need to know about. if there's a penalty for informing the public, the public will not get informed. in order to preserve the news itself, undisclosed sources must remain so. if they are revealed on whim, the public will never be able to truly see what is going on around the world again.

this is not about Bush and stop acting like it is. This is about the malicious negligence on the part of NewsWeek. This is not about Iraq.

this is not about either. this is about undisclosed sources. stop running from the arguments of others. open yourself up to other opinions.

the standard journalistic code of ethics is that you never, ever reveal your sources, even if you have to go to jail for their protection. my mothers a journalist/writer and has been telling me this for years. the guy who revealed the cia agent's identity was a coward.
he wasnt a CIA agent, he was a British microbiologist and former UN weapons inspector. a Parliamentary commitee found out from the Ministry of Defence (not the BBC reporter, the MoD worked out who told who what) and dragged him through a question and answer session, and then he went and killed himself.

the BBC only admitted it was him after his body was found, and then the Hutton inquiry (which was set up by the government to investigate) spent more time attacking the BBC than actually looking into it

[/hijack]

he wasnt a CIA agent, he was a British microbiologist and former UN weapons inspector. a Parliamentary commitee found out from the Ministry of Defence (not the BBC reporter, the MoD worked out who told who what) and dragged him through a question and answer session, and then he went and killed himself.

the BBC only admitted it was him after his body was found, and then the Hutton inquiry (which was set up by the government to investigate) spent more time attacking the BBC than actually looking into it

theres a bit of a mixup here; i'm talking about the incident in the united states in which a female CIA agent's identity was compromised by a journalist's quoting of sources that he should not have quoted. he wound up giving up the name of his source to the government when faced with possible jail time.

i know what you're talking about in terms of the british guy; i was actually in Lewes, which is near Brighton, when that first hit the papers.

theres a bit of a mixup here; i'm talking about the incident in the united states in which a female CIA agent's identity was compromised by a journalist's quoting of sources that he should not have quoted. he wound up giving up the name of his source to the government when faced with possible jail time.

i know what you're talking about in terms of the british guy; i was actually in Lewes, which is near Brighton, when that first hit the papers.
Ah ok, i was wondering why you were talking about a CIA agent :p

suppose both stories are examples of why sources should never be revealed

apparently its supposed to make them innocent.
Problem is that the US was working with bad intell, where as Newsweek was a newsmagazine that never checked its facts, and relied on just one person who very likely hated America and wanted to incite violence against Americans.
I think the reason they did it, was because the libs who run it, wanted very hard, for the accusation to be true, even if there was no evidence.

You're probably right. I hope not, but hell, why else would Newsweek do something that stupid?

this is not about either. this is about undisclosed sources. stop running from the arguments of others. open yourself up to other opinions.
NO. you are changing the subject of the thread.
This thread is about Newsweeks lack of accountability and printing of stuff that has no basis in reality. If you want to talk about something other than that, go start your own thread.

NO. you are changing the subject of the thread.
This thread is about Newsweeks lack of accountability and printing of stuff that has no basis in reality. If you want to talk about something other than that, go start your own thread.

Wrong.

an undisclosed source, cannot be relied to give facts. And if he exists, he needs to be placed on trial for the deaths and destruction he has caused.

we were talking about undisclosed sources. you yourself changed the topic.



nice try.

NO. you are changing the subject of the thread.
This thread is about Newsweeks lack of accountability and printing of stuff that has no basis in reality. If you want to talk about something other than that, go start your own thread.
im sure were all still waiting for you to prove that it has no basis in reality

American soldiers in Iraq are not firing at civilians indiscrimately. those civilians are terrorists. Just because they wear civilian attire does not mean they are civilians.


wait, so all the civilians who have been fired upon in Iraq were terrorists? i doubt it considering there have been more civilian casualties than any other in this war and almost none even had so much as a knife on them.(exaggeration, but you get the point)
you could just make it easy on yourself and say the truth, the civilians were fired at by accident in the heat of battle. its unfortunate, but it happens.

only thing is that i'm not against it for the sake of getting information out of detainees.

*sigh*

And that's part of the problem. When - and I'm not assuming it's true as, frankly, I'm not there and do not know for certain - an American soldier pisses on a Qur'an to extract information, that soldier is pissing on all of Islam. All of us. I had nothing to do with 9/11 or any act of aggression against the United States and, as a matter of fact, served in the United States Army with valour and pride and came out of it as a decorated combat veteran; yet, some pimply faced kid with a stripe and a mission is pissing on me.

I'm curious to know just how much information has been gleaned by these actions. I'm guessing .... none. If someone pissed on a Qur'an in front of me in a deliberate attempt to say my religion deserves to be pissed on, I'd tear them a few new assholes ... even if I died in the process. I certainly wouldn't give up any information.

*sigh*

And that's part of the problem. When - and I'm not assuming it's true as, frankly, I'm not there and do not know for certain - an American soldier pisses on a Qur'an to extract information, that soldier is pissing on all of Islam. All of us. I had nothing to do with 9/11 or any act of aggression against the United States and, as a matter of fact, served in the United States Army with valour and pride and came out of it as a decorated combat veteran; yet, some pimply faced kid with a stripe and a mission is pissing on me.


I believe wholeheartedly in respect for the religion of all peoples, but I also believe that its is better to commit sacriledge in the eyes of one group for the sake of keeping people of all color and creed alive.

Oh, and my father is a Muslim.

wait, so all the civilians who have been fired upon in Iraq were terrorists? i doubt it considering there have been more civilian casualties than any other in this war and almost none even had so much as a knife on them.(exaggeration, but you get the point)
you could just make it easy on yourself and say the truth, the civilians were fired at by accident in the heat of battle. its unfortunate, but it happens.
the only civilians dying in Iraq are the ones being butchered by the terrorists you are supporting by posting such rubish.

Wrong.



we were talking about undisclosed sources. you yourself changed the topic.



nice try.go back and read my opening post. You are the one who changed the subject.

this thread is bout liberal anti bush reporters publishing false stories.

the only civilians dying in Iraq are the ones being butchered by the terrorists you are supporting by posting such rubish.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4159521.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4085579.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3931023.stm

Wrong.

the only civilians dying in Iraq are the ones being butchered by the terrorists you are supporting by posting such rubish.

**laughs** Are you working on the perfect troll impression? You're getting really quite good at it. I commend you for your perfection. Perhaps we should set up a little bridge for your character to live under and eat billygoats.

Its really quite funny, but you're being TOO good at impersonating a troll. Some people might get the wrong idea, think that you are actually this unreasonable. You've got to give up the troll facade eventually or people will not take you seriously.

go back and read my opening post. You are the one who changed the subject.

this thread is bout liberal anti bush reporters publishing false stories.

I'm tired of this.

No.

**laughs** Are you working on the perfect troll impression? You're getting really quite good at it. I commend you for your perfection. Perhaps we should set up a little bridge for your character to live under and eat billygoats.

Its really quite funny, but you're being TOO good at impersonating a troll. Some people might get the wrong idea, think that you are actually this unreasonable. You've got to give up the troll facade eventually or people will not take you seriously.
can't handle the truth eh?

this thread is bout liberal anti bush reporters publishing false stories.

Dude ... I hate to tell you this ... but ever since 9/11, the media has been doing everything in its power to *not* make Bush look bad. Newsflash: Internet Blogs are not Journalistic outlets.

Newsweek may very well have made a mistake. It wouldn't be the first time. You show me one media outlet that is infallible. Sometimes the mistake costs lives. At least Newsweek can admit to its mistake whereas Bush can't think of one thing he's done wrong.

You calling for Newsweek's head on a pike is just your way of proving that you're nothing but a mouth-frothing hater of all of the things this country was founded on and stands for. I, for one, would like very much if you'd go back to Communist Russia where you belong. I'll keep my Freedom of the Press, thanks, even if it means having to use my own (gasp) brain to filter the wheat from the chaff instead of relying on the government to do it for me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4159521.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4085579.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3931023.stm

Wrong.
how interesting you rely only on the BBC. A news corporation know to be hostile to the US.

how interesting you rely only on the BBC. A news corporation know to be hostile to the US.

Man ... you're good.

Dude ... I hate to tell you this ... but ever since 9/11, the media has been doing everything in its power to *not* make Bush look bad. Newsflash: Internet Blogs are not Journalistic outlets.

Newsweek may very well have made a mistake. It wouldn't be the first time. You show me one media outlet that is infallible. Sometimes the mistake costs lives. At least Newsweek can admit to its mistake whereas Bush can't think of one thing he's done wrong.

You calling for Newsweek's head on a pike is just your way of proving that you're nothing but a mouth-frothing hater of all of the things this country was founded on and stands for. I, for one, would like very much if you'd go back to Communist Russia where you belong. I'll keep my Freedom of the Press, thanks, even if it means having to use my own (gasp) brain to filter the wheat from the chaff instead of relying on the government to do it for me.

You have a brain? :eek:

In all seriousness, this has nothing whatever to do with protecting freedom of the press. Freedom of the press does not cover libel or the publication of false stories that destroy other people's lives and careers. Let alone the reputation of governments.

Man ... you're good.

yeah dude, i'm just gonna give up for the night. i'm tired, my knee is killing me, and this guy is telling me the BBC is corrupt. i thought i'd seen the worst of america, but i'd say that this is it.

You have a brain? :eek:

In all seriousness, this has nothing whatever to do with protecting freedom of the press. Freedom of the press does not cover libel or the publication of false stories that destroy other people's lives and careers.
thats ok, because Newsweek hasnt been shown to have published a false story

or maybe i missed that, would you show me where?

thats ok, because Newsweek hasnt been shown to have published a false story

or maybe i missed that, would you show me where?
they admitted to it.

can't handle the truth eh?

So you ARE a troll? Dang. I was hoping you weren't. I was hoping there was some shred of decency left in you.

I can handle the truth about you, but it saddens me. Its like watching a drug addict. You're addicted to your ignorant hate, and theres nothing I can do to help you if you don't want to be helped. Its so sad.

Well, enjoy your little thread. I'll stop checking in on it now. I was under the impression you were having some harmless fun, but it seems you really are...

they admitted to it.
show me where they said that their story was false. show me where they unequivocly admitted the bit about the Koran being desecrated was false.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7864705/

"The spokesman also said the Pentagon had investigated other desecration charges by prisoners and found them not credible."

show me where they said that their story was false. show me where they unequivocly admitted the bit about the Koran being desecrated was false.
looks like you posted before I copy pasted the link and other qoute but from Newsweek itself. (from the same link)

“Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Quran abuse at Guantanamo Bay,” Whitaker said."

Now I suppose you are going to say that it still happened?

looks like you posted before I copy pasted the link and other qoute but from Newsweek itself. (from the same link)

“Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Quran abuse at Guantanamo Bay,” Whitaker said."
when you retract something, you are admitting it was false.

looks like you posted before I copy pasted the link and other qoute but from Newsweek itself. (from the same link)

“Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Quran abuse at Guantanamo Bay,” Whitaker said."
come on now, surely you arent going to pass that off as admitting their story was a lie?

did you miss this bit:
"Whitaker wrote that the magazine’s information came from “a knowledgeable U.S. government source,” and before publishing the item, writers Michael Isikoff and John Barry sought comment from two Defense Department officials. One declined to respond, and the other challenged another part of the story but did not dispute the Quran charge, Whitaker said."
?

How delightfully condicending.

You know what? I want to know if people representing me are acting in this matter. I want it to be public, I want those who would do something like that in my name held responsable.

Where's your call for descretion on the people that would do something so wrong that it would cause riots? Why is it more wrong for our media to call it out than it is to DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Maturity takes responsability for what it does, it doens't place it on 'who told.'
I think that shifting the argument from what Newsweek should or should not have done to what I think isn't quite fair. We should be arguing about Newsweek. Newsweek had a quote that amounted to a couple sentences in a fairly substantial article. The reasoning they seem to have employed to validate the quote was that "the DoD didn't object to it". Newsweek didn't do the due diligence required to validate such an inflammatory statement. The only former prisoner that seems to recall the act has only recently done so. That recollection coincided with a monetary claim against the U.S. That's a little dubious, too.

There's nothing wrong with being a little patronizing when it's called for. Discretion is a learned quality that one exercises. It can't be forced upon one. I don't think you understand discretion. Of course, neither does Newsweek.

Why are you guys arguing? This troll is just ignoring all the evidence that you constantly throw out. Do you really think there's any point? He's just brushing everything aside.

come on now, surely you arent going to pass that off as admitting their story was a lie?

did you miss this bit:
"Whitaker wrote that the magazine’s information came from “a knowledgeable U.S. government source,” and before publishing the item, writers Michael Isikoff and John Barry sought comment from two Defense Department officials. One declined to respond, and the other challenged another part of the story but did not dispute the Quran charge, Whitaker said."
?
One source who could very well turn out to be someone like that one guy who supposedly went to Africa to look for uran. but ended up being a Bush hater with an anti america agenda.

You have a brain? :eek:

Well ... it's handy for regulating heart beat.

Freedom of the press does not cover libel or the publication of false stories that destroy other people's lives and careers. Let alone the reputation of governments.

Oh I dunno. Smarter men than I have debated this issue and it seems to me that the conclusion has been that the press can print whatever it wants to without care for the content, but must face the consequences of anything such as libel. Libel, however, is a State issue, not a Federal issue.

Libel laws vary. Freedom of the Press is unwaivering. It gives the press a lot of power, yes, but they are the 4th branch of the government, after all, with its only check and/or balance being We the People.

When I was working as a writer for my college newspaper, I wrote an op/ed piece when the college decided it wanted a rodeo team. I was virulently against the rodeo and decried it as deliberate mistreatment of animals.

A few days after publication, I was confronted in a restaurant by some bubba who was fully ready to kick the ever living shit out of me. I will give you the same advice I gave him: Don't call for the head of the writer, rather pick up a pen and write a rebuttal.

If you can do your own investigation and draw your own conclusions as to the goings on at Gitmo, then do so and write it. I would gladly read it. Otherwise, all you can do is rely on what the press tells you. Now, I ask you, do you want a press that must be filtered by the government before you get to read it, or would you rather have a completely Free Press that allows you to make up your own mind?

Why are you guys arguing? This troll is just ignoring all the evidence that you constantly throw out. Do you really think there's any point? He's just brushing everything aside.
Evidence? They have given no evidence whatever that it happened.

One source who could very well turn out to be someone like that one guy who supposedly went to Africa to look for uran. but ended up being a Bush hater with an anti america agenda.
*sigh*

you know...whatever.

Well ... it's handy for regulating heart beat.



Oh I dunno. Smarter men than I have debated this issue and it seems to me that the conclusion has been that the press can print whatever it wants to without care for the content, but must face the consequences of anything such as libel. Libel, however, is a State issue, not a Federal issue.

Libel laws vary. Freedom of the Press is unwaivering. It gives the press a lot of power, yes, but they are the 4th branch of the government, after all, with its only check and/or balance being We the People.

When I was working as a writer for my college newspaper, I wrote an op/ed piece when the college decided it wanted a rodeo team. I was virulently against the rodeo and decried it as deliberate mistreatment of animals.

A few days after publication, I was confronted in a restaurant by some bubba who was fully ready to kick the ever living shit out of me. I will give you the same advice I gave him: Don't call for the head of the writer, rather pick up a pen and write a rebuttal.

If you can do your own investigation and draw your own conclusions as to the goings on at Gitmo, then do so and write it. I would gladly read it. Otherwise, all you can do is rely on what the press tells you. Now, I ask you, do you want a press that must be filtered by the government before you get to read it, or would you rather have a completely Free Press that allows you to make up your own mind?
You are comparing an apple to an orange. You didn't write libel. What Newsweek did was libel.
The press has a duty to make sure it has all its facts right and not rely on just one source who could turn out to be someone with a vendetta.

You seem to forget that it has not been proven as libel.

And you seem to not understand what he wrote at all. It would seem he's telling you to write an intelligent anti-newsweek article, rather than just saying "OMG NEWSWEEK IS AN EVIL DEMOCRAT CONSPIRACY."

What Newsweek did was libel.

Last I checked, that had to be proven. Libel is a civil issue and in civil matters - though Cat-Tribe is more qualified than I on this - I believe the accuser has preponderance of evidence. Libel is also about intent. Did Newsweek print the story with the intention of hurting the United States and her interests? I somehow doubt it.

No court has ruled on the Newsweek case, hence, all accusations of libel are, in fact, mere allegation. Even with a full confession, guilt must be proven.

I think that shifting the argument from what Newsweek should or should not have done to what I think isn't quite fair. We should be arguing about Newsweek. Newsweek had a quote that amounted to a couple sentences in a fairly substantial article. The reasoning they seem to have employed to validate the quote was that "the DoD didn't object to it". Newsweek didn't do the due diligence required to validate such an inflammatory statement. The only former prisoner that seems to recall the act has only recently done so. That recollection coincided with a monetary claim against the U.S. That's a little dubious, too.

There's nothing wrong with being a little patronizing when it's called for. Discretion is a learned quality that one exercises. It can't be forced upon one. I don't think you understand discretion. Of course, neither does Newsweek.
We heard you did this, how 'bout it? Nothing? Okay.

The DoD had a chance to say something about it before it went to press. They didn't. It's not Newsweeks job to hold the DoDs hand and guide them through everything, "Are you sure you don't want to deny this?"

So save your patronizing, kiddo. Especially when your going around moving goalposts (first it was discretion not to print a story that would be inflammitory, now it's to not beg the DoD to adress this one point when they've already given them the story before it went to press.) When you figure out what exactly it is your arguing, get back to us, okay slugger?

Newsweek has retracted its report that US officials had been committing sacrilige against the Koran today, according to CNN.
Newsweek admitted it had no evidence whatever for the report.
By running to article, Newsweek turned itself into a sleazy tabloid.
However, no one at the publication is being published for a false report that resulted in thousands of people being attacked, killed or injured around the world.
This is why I don't read Newsweek. I didn't need this to convince me, I've always considered Newsweek to be nothing more than a tabloid.

Unfortunately the retraction comes too late for the 17 people who were brutally killed as a result. Deaths resulting from a false story, is something that you just can't retract.

You know what I find totally amusing? The fact that rightwingers can now find the time to endlessly prattle on like vindicated school girls about Newsweek's contentious story, but yet pay absolutely 0 lip service what so ever to the Downing street memo that just came out:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

Which proves that the Iraq war was not only on the drawing books way before 9/11, but that Blair and Bush were working in conjunction to justify a path to a war of mutual benefit.

Nice cherry picking there, rightwing. And of course, the so called "left wing media" picks up and runs with this Newsweek story like a young boy in a field and yet completely ignores the Downing St. memo story. Yup, thats the "librul media" for you, forever highlighting pro rightwing stories while disregarding anything mildly leftwing and even centrist for fuck's sake.

Why are you guys arguing? This troll is just ignoring all the evidence that you constantly throw out. Do you really think there's any point? He's just brushing everything aside.
But have you looked at what was published?

New York Times (http://nytimes.com/2005/05/16/international/asia/16koran.html?hp&ex=1116302400&en=0c054db012d81289&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

In addition, the reporters, Michael Isikoff, a veteran investigative reporter, and John Barry, a national security correspondent, showed a draft of the article to the source and to a senior Pentagon official asking if it was correct. The source corrected one aspect of the article, which focused on the Southern Command's internal report on prisoner abuse.

"But he was silent about the rest of the item," Newsweek reported. "The official had not meant to mislead, but lacked detailed knowledge of the SouthCom report."

Thus the claim was not questioned because the person did not have the knowledge... and Newsweek, never asked about it because...
He said that in this case, the magazine had followed careful and proper reporting techniques. The source had been reliable in the past, he said, and was in a position to know about the report he was describing. so they burned themselves by not verifying a particularly damaging (to the US forces/Bush Administration) peice of news.

In its article published today, the magazine said that although the reference to the Koran was a side element in an article, it was worth printing because it had come from an American government official. Other news organizations had written that American guards had desecrated the Koran, Newsweek said, but those reports were based on testimony from former detainees who had been released from Guantánamo.and that's what made them[Newsweek] drool to have this published with minimal checks.


and from CNN.Com (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/15/newsweek.quran/index.html)

But he said "different forces" were at work that helped spark the riots.

"It's clear that people seized on the Newsweek report to advance their own agendas, and that that was part of it," he said.

"But I also think that there's an enormous amount of pent-up and not-so-pent-up anti-American rage and sentiment in that region."

"There are a lot of people who think that our war on terror and our war in Iraq is a much wider war against Islam," he said.so what they're saying, Sorry we provided the gasoline and tossed it on the fire, but since the fire was burning already...

and as for the "Mountains of evidence that it happened?

"If you read the al Qaeda training manual, they are trained to make allegations against the infidels," Army Col. Brad Blackner told Newsweek. Consider the sources of those alligations.

and for those who never read the original article.
Newsweek Periscope May 9th (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7693014/site/newsweek/)

We heard you did this, how 'bout it? Nothing? Okay.

The DoD had a chance to say something about it before it went to press. They didn't. It's not Newsweeks job to hold the DoDs hand and guide them through everything, "Are you sure you don't want to deny this?"

So save your patronizing, kiddo. Especially when your going around moving goalposts (first it was discretion not to print a story that would be inflammitory, now it's to not beg the DoD to adress this one point when they've already given them the story before it went to press.) When you figure out what exactly it is your arguing, get back to us, okay slugger?and that is why trash like this was published, Newsweek assumed that the DoD source read the alligations and was part of the investigation, while the DoD source assumed that Newsweek checked with their other sources, not knowing they didn't.

Who's responsibility is it to check out the Facts... Newsweeks, after all, it's their name and reputation on the line, so yes, they should've ask thier source to confirm everything! That is called checking your facts. Cat-tribe, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Lawyers have to check and double check all facts and evidence and verify that it's solid before going to court?

You know what I find totally amusing? The fact that rightwingers can now find the time to endlessly prattle on like vindicated school girls about Newsweek's contentious story, but yet pay absolutely 0 lip service what so ever to the Downing street memo that just came out:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

Which proves that the Iraq war was not only on the drawing books way before 9/11, but that Blair and Bush were working in conjunction to justify a path to a war of mutual benefit.

Nice cherry picking there, rightwing. And of course, the so called "left wing media" picks up and runs with this Newsweek story like a young boy in a field and yet completely ignores the Downing St. memo story. Yup, thats the "librul media" for you, forever highlighting pro rightwing stories while disregarding anything mildly leftwing and even centrist for fuck's sake.
then post a thread about it, and not attempt to hijack another thread.

But have you looked at what was published?

New York Times (http://nytimes.com/2005/05/16/international/asia/16koran.html?hp&ex=1116302400&en=0c054db012d81289&ei=5094&partner=homepage)



Thus the claim was not questioned because the person did not have the knowledge... and Newsweek, never asked about it because...
so they burned themselves by not verifying a particularly damaging (to the US forces/Bush Administration) peice of news.

and that's what made them[Newsweek] drool to have this published with minimal checks.


and from CNN.Com (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/15/newsweek.quran/index.html)

so what they're saying, Sorry we provided the gasoline and tossed it on the fire, but since the fire was burning already...

and as for the "Mountains of evidence that it happened?

Consider the sources of those alligations.

and for those who never read the original article.
Newsweek Periscope May 9th (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7693014/site/newsweek/)
hey thanks for that last week. I've been trying to find a copy.

This expresses the exact sentiments of those us who demand Newsweek and its reporter be held to account.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4838957/


"How irresponsible! In the rush to be the first with the "scoop" and presuming as you do the obvious guilt of the military, you caused the firestorm that left several dead in Afghanistan. That is akin to yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater, not freedom of speech. Someone is responsible for this travesty, and those whom you lied about, and those who died deserve some sort of retribution. I for one will be more inclined to go to the blogosphere for "responsible" journalism.
S.M.Spinks"


Neither free press nor free speech can be used as a defense if you yell fire. It is the same here. Newsweek knew stuff was boiling in Afghan. due to provocation by the Taliban and other anti american hate group.
They threw gasoline on the fire when they knew what would it cause. Their fiening of "oh we didn't know people would use to promote anti american nazism" doesn't hold water. They should have known.
What NewsWeek did was yell fire in a crowded theater and as such its actions are not proteced by the first amendment.

We heard you did this, how 'bout it? Nothing? Okay.

The DoD had a chance to say something about it before it went to press. They didn't. It's not Newsweeks job to hold the DoDs hand and guide them through everything, "Are you sure you don't want to deny this?"

So save your patronizing, kiddo. Especially when your going around moving goalposts (first it was discretion not to print a story that would be inflammitory, now it's to not beg the DoD to adress this one point when they've already given them the story before it went to press.) When you figure out what exactly it is your arguing, get back to us, okay slugger?
No shifting target here. Just support for the idea that they shouldn't have printed the one or two sentences. Never did I mention killing a story. Well, maybe I said something that could have been interpreted that way, but this is all about refraining from printing a couple sentences that really throw the cost to benefit ratio out of whack.

Try again.

No shifting target here. Just support for the idea that they shouldn't have printed the one or two sentences. Never did I mention killing a story. Well, maybe I said something that could have been interpreted that way, but this is all about refraining from printing a couple sentences that really throw the cost to benefit ratio out of whack.

Try again.
So where is it now, the fifteen, the twenty? In the stands?

Yeah...this has become like trying to teach a pig to sing...