Newsweek Story Causes Violence in Afghanistan

[GnRNightrain]

Newsweek backs off Quran desecration story
Account blamed for violent riots in Afghanistan
Sunday, May 15, 2005 Posted: 7:03 PM EDT (2303 GMT)

 
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Newsweek magazine backed away Sunday from a report that U.S. interrogators desecrated copies of the Quran while questioning prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay naval base -- an account blamed for sparking violent riots in Afghanistan.

At least 15 people were killed and dozens injured last week when thousands of demonstrators marched in Afghanistan and other parts of the Muslim world, officials and eyewitnesses said.

The Pentagon said last week it was unable to corroborate any case in which interrogators at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, defiled the Muslim holy book, as Newsweek reported in its May 9 issue.

"Top administration officials have promised to continue looking into the charges, and so will we," Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker wrote in the magazine's May 23 issue, out Sunday.

"But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst."

Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita blamed Newsweek's report for the unrest in Muslim countries.

"People are dying. They are burning American flags. Our forces are in danger," he told CNN.

Violent protests broke out in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, and elsewhere last week after the magazine cited sources saying investigators looking into abuses at the military prison found interrogators "had placed Qurans on toilets, and in at least one case flushed a holy book down the toilet."

Muslims revere the Quran, and defacing it "is especially heinous," Newsweek wrote in its latest issue.

At a Pentagon press conference Thursday, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cited U.S. commanders as saying the protests in Jalalabad, at least, were more about local politics than anti-American sentiment stirred by the Newsweek report.

Magazine: What went wrong?
In an article assessing its coverage, the magazine wrote, "How did Newsweek get its facts wrong? And how did the story feed into serious international unrest?"

Newsweek said Michael Isikoff, who reported the item with John Barry, became interested in the story after FBI e-mails that revealed an uglier side of life in Guantanamo were released late last year.

"Isikoff knew that military investigators at Southern Command [which runs the Guantanamo prison] were looking into the allegations," the article said.

"So he called a longtime reliable source, a senior U.S. government official who was knowledgeable about the matter.

"The source told Isikoff that the [investigators'] report would include new details that were not in the FBI e-mails, including mention of flushing the Quran down a toilet."

Whitaker wrote that before publishing the account the magazine approached two Pentagon officials for comment. One declined and the other challenged a different aspect of the report, Whitaker wrote.

Myers said at the Pentagon briefing Thursday the military was looking into the allegations.

He said investigators had so far been unable to confirm a "toilet incident, except for one case, a log entry, which they still have to confirm, where a detainee was reported by a guard to be ripping pages out of a Quran and putting [them] in the toilet to stop it up as a protest. But not where the U.S. did it."

On Friday, Newsweek said, DiRita phoned the magazine and said that investigators found no incidents involving Quran desecration.

A day later, Isikoff reached his source again, who said that although he remembered reading investigative reports about desecration of the Quran, including a toilet incident, "he could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced in the [Southern Command] report."

DiRita "exploded" when Newsweek informed him that one of the original sources behind the report had partially backed off the story, the magazine said.

"People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said," DiRita told Newsweek, according to the magazine's report. "How could he be credible now?"

DiRita confirmed the quote to CNN.

He said investigators have found nothing to support allegations that U.S. troops had desecrated copies of the Quran, but turned up one case he said has now led to stricter procedures at the prison camp.

In that case, a Quran fell to the floor during a routine search, he said. The book was encased in surgical mask, which prisoners at the facility are given to protect the book.

Camp commanders have since established stronger procedures when searching near a Quran, DiRita said -- including a rule that allows only Muslim troops, interrogators or chaplains to touch a copy.

But Newsweek said Isikoff has uncovered more allegations of Quran desecration.

One, from an attorney representing some of the detainees, provided some declassified notes indicating 23 detainees had tried to commit suicide in August 2003 when a guard dropped a Quran and stomped on it. (Full story)

Isikoff found two other references to Qurans being tossed into toilets or latrines, the magazine reported.

U.S. military officials said such claims are standard terrorist tactics.

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

[GnRNightrain]

Nice to see that our press has learned to corroborate its stories before it prints them.  You would think they would have learned a lesson after the CBS debacle. 

The press should be extremely careful on corroborating the stories that they print since these stories cost american lives overseas.

[jgfnsr]

Nice to see that our press has learned to corroborate its stories before it prints them.? You would think they would have learned a lesson after the CBS debacle.?

The press should be extremely careful on corroborating the stories that they print since these stories cost american lives overseas.

There are people who's absolute loathing and hatred for the current U.S. administration cloud their judgment and common sense.

No doubt both you and I could think of more than a few right here on this board...

[SLCPUNK]

Funny since Bush caused much more violence in Afghanistan....

Including deaths of thousands of civilians, and our selfless service people who were duped into a pseudo-war for the oil barons and Halliburton profiteers

Don't be modest now....Newsweek ain't got nuthin' on old W.

[SLCPUNK]

The press should be extremely careful on corroborating the stories that they print since these stories cost american lives overseas.

Your gang has created fake WMDs, and other bullshit reasons for occupying Iraq.

Did these not cost around 1500 American lives overseas?

[SLCPUNK]

The press(ident) should be extremely careful on corroborating the stories that they print since these stories cost american lives overseas.



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002 -- well before the president brought the issue to Congress for approval.

The Times of London newspaper published the memo -- actually minutes of a high-level meeting on Iraq held July 23, 2002 -- on May 1.

British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity, and Michael Boyce, then Britain's Chief of Defense Staff, told the paper that Britain had not then made a decision to follow the United States to war, but it would have been "irresponsible" not to prepare for the possibility.

The White House has not yet responded to queries about the congressional letter, which was released on May 6.

The letter, initiated by Rep. John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the memo "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration. ...

"While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your administration," the letter said.

But, the letter said, when the document was leaked Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman called it "nothing new."

In addition to Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon, Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, MI6 chief Richard Dearlove and others attended the meeting.

A British official identified as "C" said that he had returned from a meeting in Washington and that "military action was now seen as inevitable" by U.S. officials.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

"The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

The memo further discussed the military options under consideration by the United States, along with Britain's possible role.

It quoted Hoon as saying the United States had not finalized a timeline, but that it would likely begin "30 days before the U.S. congressional elections," culminating with the actual attack in January 2003.

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said.

"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

The British officials determined to push for an ultimatum for Saddam to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq to "help with the legal justification for the use of force ... despite U.S. resistance."

Britain's attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, advised the group that "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action" and two of three possible legal bases -- self-defense and humanitarian intervention -- could not be used.

The third was a U.N. Security Council resolution, which Goldsmith said "would be difficult."

Blair thought that "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors."

"If the political context were right, people would support regime change," the memo said.

Later, the memo said, Blair would work to convince Bush that they should pursue the ultimatum with Saddam even though "many in the U.S. did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route."

[GnRNightrain]

Funny since Bush caused much more violence in Afghanistan....

Including deaths of thousands of civilians, and our selfless service people who were duped into a pseudo-war for the oil barons and Halliburton profiteers

Don't be modest now....Newsweek ain't got nuthin' on old W.

Justify one bad thing by pointing to another.  Not surprising.

So now Afghanistan was a war for Haliburton and oil also.  Not even you believed this before.  You really are losing your shit.

[GnRNightrain]

The press should be extremely careful on corroborating the stories that they print since these stories cost american lives overseas.

Your gang has created fake WMDs, and other bullshit reasons for occupying Iraq.

Did these not cost around 1500 American lives overseas?

Why cant you discuss the article instead of turning this into another hate-Bush thread.

We have gone over this a million times.  All investigations have shown that there were no lies.

There certainly is stuff that the press should jump on, but printing the story they did they had to know that it would cause violence and American lives.

[jgfnsr]

Why cant you discuss the article instead of turning this into another hate-Bush thread.

And that's the big question about our friend SLCPUNK isn't it?

My problem with the guy isn't that he's "against the war" or that him and I disagree on so many things.

More often than not, if someone is at least honest and tries to be objective and call things "down the line," I can still respect their opinion.

But I stopped hoping that SLCPUNK would do that long ago....

[pekstein]

SLCpunks problem is that he is diverting the issue.  the issue here is that newsweek, and the rest of the media (whether conservative, liberal, or whatever) needs to be more careful in what they are reporting.  they must realize the power that they have, and that false reports such as this can not only cost lives (16 people are dead now because of newsweek) but they can also set back the US's progress in the middle east and around the globe.  muslims already don't trust the United States and our motives (which i believe to be just and honorable) and false news reports like this cause even more skepticism and distrust by muslim nations.  newsweek's article has undermined our mission in afghanistan and Iraq, and it will only cause more problems for our brave soldiers who are in service in those areas.  if the liberal media truly did "support the troops" as they claim to do, they would not publish such articles, knowing the harm that they will cause.

[SLCPUNK]

Justify one bad thing by pointing to another.  Not surprising.

So now Afghanistan was a war for Haliburton and oil also.  Not even you believed this before.  You really are losing your shit.

Never said it was. I can jump around can't I?

As usual, you take what I say, misread it (on purpose or because your are dim) and then go off on that. Then I am forced to answer it.

Look, you claim that Newsweek ran this story and it caused the deaths of Americans and others over there.

The fact that the whitehouse can claim foul is amazing to me. It takes balls the size of churchbells to be up in arms over this. How can I not bring up Bush in the Middleeast when you complain of this? I can't.

The facts were given by a government official.

They were fact checked.

Now the official is saying "I'm not sure if it's 100% correct".

Prisoners who have left Abu Ghraib have claimed the same thing. Although they (even though they were released and not gound guilty of any crime) can not be counted as a "credible source".

Forget that murder, sexual abuse and torture has occured in this prison already and one gaurd (just today) was found guilty of these crimes.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050517/ap_on_re_us/prisoner_abuse_harman

Is it not possible to believe that somebody ripped up a Quran and flushed it down the toilet? After reading the outright bigotry on this board alone??? Your saying that could not have happened?

It still has not been proven to be false, and while Newsweek should not have run it without double checking it's sources, it certainly is NOT the cause for anti-American feelings in the middle east. The fact that we are now placing permanent military bases over there is why.

As usual the news is whipping this into a frenzy and it's another chance to throw out propaganda words.

But in reality, the cause of American deaths in the middle east,( after no WMD, and memo claiming that he planned the attack in advance and had to sell it to his country) is George W Bush.

You will cry, "well then Newsweek should have doublechecked it's sources, and it is responsible for the deaths of Americans because it did not."

While at the same time you will defend our ass of a President on his "decision" to go to war based on "intelligence" which later turned out to be false.

Should he have doubled checked his intelligence? You always place the blame away from him and blame it on his intelligence.

Which is a bigger blunder? Not double checking a story about Abu Prison, where our human rights violations have been excessive already (and soldiers on trial and being found guilty)?

Or...

Not double checking your intelligence and taking a nation of young people to war resulting in (so far ) about 1500 US deaths?

Which is worse?

Which cost more lives, by not double checking? And from the looks of what just happend (with the British secret memo) he never checked shit! He made it up!!!

[SLCPUNK]

16 May 2005 10:12:49 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Sayed Salahuddin

KABUL, May 16 (Reuters) - Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan were sceptical on Monday about an apparent retraction by Newsweek magazine of a report that U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran and said U.S. pressure was behind the climb-down. (...)

"We will not be deceived by this," Islamic cleric Mullah Sadullah Abu Aman told Reuters in the northern Afghan province of Badakhshan, referring to the magazine's retraction.

"This is a decision by America to save itself. It comes because of American pressure. Even an ordinary illiterate peasant understands this and won't accept it."

Aman was the leader of a group of clerics who on Sunday vowed to call for a holy war against the United States in three days unless it handed over the military interrogators reported to have desecrated the Koran.

More:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL165639.htm

[D]

a lot of people believe if its on the news or in print that is 100 percent true.

thats why the media is so dangerous.


Im not really a Bush supporter or hater, Im not a Democrat or Republican

Im not on anyone's side but in Bush's defense

U cant criticize Bush for 9/11 and then also blame him for the War in Iraq

Bush got memos that something was gonna happen, correct?
He didnt do anything about them, 9/11 happened

now had Bush invaded Afghanistan before 9/11, he wouldnt have found any evidence of the terrorist preparing to fly planes into the twin towers.


Sadaam failed to comply, whether I agree or not, He didnt hold up his bargain

how many second chances does a guy get?

Ive said this since the war started and Ill say it now

Id much rather our troops invaded Iraq and turn up no WMD, than not do shit and a truck load of nukes pull up in front of the empire state building or the white house.


mistakes are made in war, mistakes are made in every single war ever fought, the media has more access now though which is why it seems more prevalent.

Once we captured Sadaam we were obligated to the people over there to make a better life for them, if we captured Sadaam and left, the country wouldve been a free for all Civil War.

People also seem to forget that Bush cannot declare war on his own

He has to go through Congress and even John Kerry voted FOR goin to war.

[GnRNightrain]

Justify one bad thing by pointing to another.? Not surprising.

So now Afghanistan was a war for Haliburton and oil also.? Not even you believed this before.? You really are losing your shit.

Never said it was. I can jump around can't I?

Certainly you can.

The problem I have with you posts is the lack of looking at anything objectively.  It is issues like this one, where you fail to condemn the article, that makes you lose all credibility and shows your true colors.  Your first post, instead of condeming the artilce, is to bash Bush and the war against Afghanistan.  Of course, I thought you were in favor of that war.  Guess not.  Was Afghanistan not part of the war on terror either?

As usual, you take what I say, misread it (on purpose or because your are dim) and then go off on that. Then I am forced to answer it

Tell me how I misread it?  Are you fucking serious?  Your first post in the thread was not to condemn the article but to point to a place where you think there were more unjustified killings by Bush.  To me it seems like you are justifying one bad by pointing to something that you see as worse.  Can your post be read any other way?

Look, you claim that Newsweek ran this story and it caused the deaths of Americans and others over there.

The fact that the whitehouse can claim foul is amazing to me. It takes balls the size of churchbells to be up in arms over this. How can I not bring up Bush in the Middleeast when you complain of this? I can't.

No where are we talking about the White House.  We are talking about running a misleading article that cost lives.  We are not saying that Bush is right and these guys are wrong.  You are reading into it as you may.

What makes you want to defend this article?  Because you are very defensive of it?

The facts were given by a government official.

They were fact checked.

Now the official is saying "I'm not sure if it's 100% correct".

So were the facts on Iraq.  Yet, when this guy gets his facts wrong you give him a free pass.  Both resulted in the loss of lives, yet you comdemn one, and defend the other?

Forget that murder, sexual abuse and torture has occured in this prison already and one gaurd (just today) was found guilty of these crimes.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050517/ap_on_re_us/prisoner_abuse_harman

Another attempt at justifying a false story that caused lives.  Wow SLC, you have reached a new low.  Abu Ghraib was horrible, but it was blown way out of proportion.  That was news worthy, and oh did the news agency run with the story.  In fact I think the NY TImes ran the story over 50 times.  What does this have to do with Abu Ghraib?

Is it not possible to believe that somebody ripped up a Quran and flushed it down the toilet? After reading the outright bigotry on this board alone??? Your saying that could not have happened?

You are trying to skirt the issue.  We are not saying that it couldnt happen, but we are saying that the press should make sure that they have their facts right before printing such a story.  Especially, since such stories cost lives. 

So are you justifying the false story, that cased lives, based on the fact that such a thing could have occurred?

Is that what journalism has come to?  They print stories of things that could have occurred, or that could be occuring?  Come on.

It still has not been proven to be false, and while Newsweek should not have run it without double checking it's sources

How do you prove it false?  No one says that it happened now, and even Newsweek retracted their story?

I am glad that you finally said something negative about the rag that ran the story.

it certainly is NOT the cause for anti-American feelings in the middle east.The fact that we are now placing permanent military bases over there is why.

And the fact that we arent muslim, and the fact that we support Israel, and the fact that we give women rights, and the fact that Western civilization won in the 8th Century.  But of course you always blame their fanaticism on us. 

As usual the news is whipping this into a frenzy and it's another chance to throw out propaganda words.

You dont think this is a big story?  My gosh you are so partisan.  Abu Ghraib killed no one, yet you thought it was such a huge story.  This fuckers false story resulted in the deaths of 15 people and you can hardly make yourself condemn it.

But in reality, the cause of American deaths in the middle east,( after no WMD, and memo claiming that he planned the attack in advance and had to sell it to his country) is George W Bush.

And the underpinnings of your entire view on everything is finally revealed.  You need to go to therapy. 

Can I ask you a question: Who do you hate more, Bush or Osama Bin Laden?  It is a dead serious question.

You will cry, "well then Newsweek should have doublechecked it's sources, and it is responsible for the deaths of Americans because it did not."

While at the same time you will defend our ass of a President on his "decision" to go to war based on "intelligence" which later turned out to be false.

Of course you would be guilty of the same thing on the other end, wouldnt you? 
Of course, I am one of the people that defended Bush's calculations of entering the war with Iraq.  The alternative to not going to war, if what the intelligence showed was true, would mean that a crazy dictator that had ties to terrorism would have weapons in which millions of lives could be lost.  Suddam was a crazy dictator that was killing lots of his own people and was a big barrier to any change in the middle east.

What is the alternative to not printing the story, even if you believe the things are true?  It certainly wasnt costing any lives or risking any lives.  There is a big difference.  Of course in hindsight there were plenty of miscalculations with Iraq, and in the end it wasnt the best call in hindsight.  Yet, it was a far different calculation, and it doesnt astonish me that you fail to see it.

Of course, your justification of the article continues.

Which is a bigger blunder? Not double checking a story about Abu Prison, where our human rights violations have been excessive already (and soldiers on trial and being found guilty)?

Or...

Not double checking your intelligence and taking a nation of young people to war resulting in (so far ) about 1500 US deaths?

If you fail to see the difference, then all hope is lost.

Which cost more lives, by not double checking? And from the looks of what just happend (with the British secret memo) he never checked shit! He made it up!!![/b]

From the looks of what?  Every report that has come out has said that neither Bush nor Blair lied? 

[SLCPUNK]

The problem I have with you posts is the lack of looking at anything objectively.  It is issues like this one, where you fail to condemn the article....

Reread my post young Jedi.

I won't condemn until proven totally false. Which it has not been.

Your first post in the thread was not to condemn the article but to point to a place where you think there were more unjustified killings by Bush. 

The analogy must be presented in order to make a point. If you can't understand the point have somebody read it with you.

No where are we talking about the White House.  We are talking about running a misleading article that cost lives.  We are not saying that Bush is right and these guys are wrong.  You are reading into it as you may.

The white house has spoken out against newsweek. Is it not relevant to the story? It is part of the story, yet not part of your article. So picky you are....

Again, analogy must be made if you are going to cry out about this, sorry.

So were the facts on Iraq.  Yet, when this guy gets his facts wrong you give him a free pass.  Both resulted in the loss of lives, yet you comdemn one, and defend the other?

He has not been proven wrong, only retracted.

Again. If you guys are going to be up in arms about this, you better be able to defend yourselfs. People in glass houses.....that is the entire point, which you are missing.

  What does this have to do with Abu Ghraib?

Reread my post, it says right there.

Is that what journalism has come to? 

Journalism died years ago when the 24 hour news networks went on the air. But the nail was in the coffin when not one of them questioned our government for going to war.

How do you prove it false?  No one says that it happened now, and even Newsweek retracted their story?

Just because it was retracted does not make it false, just unable to source. Prisoners that were innocent that report such attrocities are not considered reliable sources.

And the fact that we arent muslim, and the fact that we support Israel, and the fact that we give women rights, and the fact that Western civilization won in the 8th Century.  But of course you always blame their fanaticism on us. 


Nope. They DO NOT want us there. They said years ago and Bush's father understood this.


  This fuckers false story resulted in the deaths of 15 people and you can hardly make yourself condemn it.

You ask this of me, yet can never condemn Bush's actions that killed 1500 of our kids?

  Suddam was a crazy dictator that was killing lots of his own people and was a big barrier to any change in the middle east.

Oh...I thought he had WMD, that is why we were going in right?

  Yet, it was a far different calculation, and it doesnt astonish me that you fail to see it.

See above. Innocent until proven guilty. It was a far different calculation because Bush's actions caused 1000's upon 1000s of lives, where the Newsweek story caused much less. Plus no harm would have come of military Americans if they had not been there in the first place (which you forget).

From the looks of what?  Every report that has come out has said that neither Bush nor Blair lied? 

The memo that claims that Bush had plans to go to invade Iraq and had to find a reason to do so. Reported last week. White house has yet to reply. Doesn't look like he can out of that one, but the "liberal" media deciding not to report it, but rather the NW story? Hmmmm.......

[D]

Bin Laden is loved which is why we can't find him, Iraqi's hated Sadaam which is why he was found.

If Iraq didnt want us to find Sadaam, i dont think we wouldve.

[GnRNightrain]

The problem I have with you posts is the lack of looking at anything objectively.? It is issues like this one, where you fail to condemn the article....

Reread my post young Jedi.

I won't condemn until proven totally false. Which it has not been.

Yet you make accusations about republicans intentionally stealing votes in Florida, you make accusations that Bush and his administration lied in Iraq, you make accusations that we went to war for oil, and you make accusations that we went to war so Bush's Halliburton buddies would profit.

You certainly have a tough standard of proof.  Too bad you only apply it selectively, and dont apply it across the board.

Your first post in the thread was not to condemn the article but to point to a place where you think there were more unjustified killings by Bush.?

The analogy must be presented in order to make a point. If you can't understand the point have somebody read it with you.

I clearly understand the point you are making.  You analogize it to Bush, to make it seem not as bad.  You do this in order to say we cant complain. Thus, you are taking what you believe is the most horrible thing to happen in a long time (Iraq war) and using that for a justification of another horrible thing.  If anything I would have thought you would have been the first person to condemn Newsweek.  After all, you care so much about innocent lives.  Right?

No where are we talking about the White House.? We are talking about running a misleading article that cost lives.? We are not saying that Bush is right and these guys are wrong.? You are reading into it as you may.

The white house has spoken out against newsweek. Is it not relevant to the story? It is part of the story, yet not part of your article. So picky you are....

Again, analogy must be made if you are going to cry out about this, sorry.

I posted the first article I saw on this, a CNN article. 

How can the UN condemn the War in Iraq where there is the oil for foods scandal.

So were the facts on Iraq.? Yet, when this guy gets his facts wrong you give him a free pass.? Both resulted in the loss of lives, yet you comdemn one, and defend the other?

He has not been proven wrong, only retracted.

Again. If you guys are going to be up in arms about this, you better be able to defend yourselfs. People in glass houses.....that is the entire point, which you are missing.

I think they are two completely different things.  If you cant see the difference that is your problem.

This is one guy trying to print a story, that wasnt properly corroborated and people died as a result.   The war in Iraq was backed by most all of the democratic senators, including your beloved John Kerry.  Clinton thought such weapons existed, and so did 5 other national intelligence agencies across the globe.  So for you to say Bush made it up out of thin air is just flat out ridiculous, and shows that you certainly dont apply your same tough standard across the board.

Is that what journalism has come to??

Journalism died years ago when the 24 hour news networks went on the air.

Is it too late to bring Rather back into the studio?

Certainly, journalism has reached a new low: CBS, Newseek debacles.  However, there are sources that werent available before either.

How do you prove it false?? No one says that it happened now, and even Newsweek retracted their story?

Just because it was retracted does not make it false, just unable to source. Prisoners that were innocent that report such attrocities are not considered reliable sources.

Should they be?  Yet, you give the prisoners the benefit of the doubt.  You give Newseek the benefit of the doubt?  Dont you think they should have darn good reliable stories before they print a story that they know will inflame the Muslim world? 

I didnt know it was our duty to prove stories false.

And the fact that we arent muslim, and the fact that we support Israel, and the fact that we give women rights, and the fact that Western civilization won in the 8th Century.? But of course you always blame their fanaticism on us.?


Nope. They DO NOT want us there. They said years ago and Bush's father understood this.

Certainly they dont, neither did Hitler's Germany.  However, when there are such human rights violations and they are breeding terrorists I dont think we should sit and wait for them to come over here.

? This fuckers false story resulted in the deaths of 15 people and you can hardly make yourself condemn it.

You ask this of me, yet can never condemn Bush's actions that killed 1500 of our kids?

Bush never lied!  All reports have said that Bush did not lie.  Yet you fail to give him your benefit of the doubt.  What was it, "innocent until proven guilty?" 

There is a huge difference, a President makes a decision based on the information that he has.  What he portrayed to the public, and what the Senate approved the War on behalf of, is exactly what Clinton thought was true, what the Senate intelligence committee thought was true, and what at least 5 foreign intelligence services thought was true.  Now you can argue about whether we should of went to war based on that information, but that is the information he presented to the public and that is the information that all of these other people thought was true as well.  So to say he made it up or lied is just plain dumb and misleading.

In addition, while the stakes were high in going to war, so was the stakes for not going to war if the intelligence was true.  With the Newseek story, there were no high stakes present in not corroborating the story.  Why couldnt they wait?

Your analogy is ridiculous, but Im sure you will never see it that way. 

? Yet, it was a far different calculation, and it doesnt astonish me that you fail to see it.

See above. Innocent until proven guilty. It was a far different calculation because Bush's actions caused 1000's upon 1000s of lives, where the Newsweek story caused much less. Plus no harm would have come of military Americans if they had not been there in the first place (which you forget).

Back to blaming Bush for everything.  What if Zarqawi blew up nuclear bomb in Baghdad and 50,000 troops died.  Would you condemn Bush before you condemned Zarqawi?  Newsweek has not duty to be responsible because Bush was already irresponsible?  If what Bush did was so bad in misleading people, I would think you would be the first person to jump on someone else that is deliberately misleading people?  But no, you justify their actions by pointing to what you see as worse actions by Bush.

From the looks of what?? Every report that has come out has said that neither Bush nor Blair lied??

The memo that claims that Bush had plans to go to invade Iraq and had to find a reason to do so. Reported last week. White house has yet to reply. Doesn't look like he can out of that one, but the "liberal" media deciding not to report it, but rather the NW story? Hmmmm.......

Glad you waited till the adminstration replied before you found them guilty.  "Innocent until proven guilty?"

I havent read much about the memo you allege.  However, I assume that our country has contingency plans to invade almost any country.  Something tells me that it is nothing more than this.  In fact, I would say that they were incompetent to run this country if they didnt have such plans on the books considering the intelligence that was out there.  Remember, even Clinton was harsh on Iraq for some time.

[SLCPUNK]

Newsweeks' sources may have been silenced, but the report still seems to based on facts.

Looks like ole Rummy bullied them into retracting if you ask me. Smokescreen part II, after the oil-for-food scandal of course. Distract distract distract....censor.



Former Detainees Have Repeatedly Accused U.S. of Desecrating Koran at Guatanamo


In August 2003, 23 Yemeni detainees reportedly tried to commit mass suicide after a guard stomped on the Koran. In addition, the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights reported former detainees said they saw the Koran being thrown into the toilets. Three British citizens released last year from Guantanamo reported similar treatment of the Koran in a 115-page dossier on the conditions at the detention camp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Monday, under intense government pressure, Newsweek magazine retracted a story that claimed U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Koran by flushing the holy book down the toilet in front of detainees. The report, published in the May 9th issue of the magazine sparked, wide-spread anti-American protests throughout the Muslim world. During the protests in Afghanistan, police killed at least 19 people in the worst anti-American demonstrations since the US invaded the country in 2001. Thousands also protested in Pakistan, Indonesia, Yemen and Gaza.

Bush administration officials have blamed the Newsweek report for sparking the protests and undercutting U.S attempts to repair its reputation in the Muslim world after tha Abu Gharib prison abuse scandal. Matt Drudge reported yesterday that Michael Isikoff, the investigative journalist who was one of the two reporters who wrote the story, offered to resign from the magazine but his resignation was not accepted by Newsweek's editors. Instead, the magazine retracted the story and apologized for publishing it.

The Pentagon first complained about the article on Friday following the deadly protests. On Monday, White House spokesperson Scott McClellan said, "The report has had serious consequences. People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged." McClellan also said that the retraction was a, "good first step" but that that the magazine had an obligation to reverse the effects of its story and explain to the Muslim world "the policies and practices of our military."

However, this is not the first time such accusations surfaced about US guards desecrating the Koran. In August 2003, 23 Yemeni detainees reportedly tried to commit mass suicide after a guard stomped on the Koran. In addition, the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights reported former detainees said they saw the Koran being thrown into the toilets. Three British citizens released last year from Guantanamo reported similar treatment of the Koran in a 115-page dossier on the conditions at the detention camp. Up until now, the Pentagon had been unwilling to say whether any of these allegations were investigated. But yesterday, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said these allegations were not credible. And last night the State Department sent a cable to all embassies instructing them to inform host countries of the Newsweek retraction. To talk more about this, we are joined by Michael Ratner. He is an attorney and the President of the Center for Constitutional Rights. We're also joined on the phone from London by journalist and playwright Victoria Britain who has spoken with many former detainees.

Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Victoria Britain, longtime reporter for the Guardian of London and author of a play about the Gauntanamo detainees.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/18/1434259

[SLCPUNK]

Yet you make accusations about republicans intentionally stealing votes in Florida, you make accusations that Bush and his administration lied in Iraq, you make accusations that we went to war for oil, and you make accusations that we went to war so Bush's Halliburton buddies would profit.

The proof has been given out time and time again.

I have posted links to blacks who WON A LAWSUIT for being turned away for their right to vote.

Cheney is still tied to Haliburton financially, and they overcharged the tax payer by millions, that is proof enough for me.

Building permanant bases in Iraq is proof enough.

The latest memo that came to light is more than enough proof to me.

Insiders on Bush's cabinet who came out and said he planned on going to Iraq well before 9-11 is proof enough for me.

I clearly understand the point you are making.  You analogize it to Bush, to make it seem not as bad.

Again you miss the point.


How can the UN condemn the War in Iraq where there is the oil for foods scandal.

There is hypocrisy abroad obviously. But there are also Texans involved in that scandal as well. Different subject.

This is one guy trying to print a story, that wasnt properly corroborated and people died as a result.   The war in Iraq was backed by most all of the democratic senators, including your beloved John Kerry.  Clinton thought such weapons existed, and so did 5 other national intelligence agencies across the globe.  So for you to say Bush made it up out of thin air is just flat out ridiculous, and shows that you certainly dont apply your same tough standard across the board.

Dems (and republicans) were misled into voting for war. Many have stated as such and sorry they voted as they did (including right-wing).

Clinton did not take us to war.

OVERWHELMING PROOF is out now that Bush's team wanted a piece of Iraq well before 9-11.

Should they be?  Yet, you give the prisoners the benefit of the doubt.  You give Newseek the benefit of the doubt?  Dont you think they should have darn good reliable stories before they print a story that they know will inflame the Muslim world?

Like I said, they were prisoners who were found innocent and released that made these statements.

The same standard of taking a country to war does not apply?


Certainly they dont, neither did Hitler's Germany.  However, when there are such human rights violations and they are breeding terrorists I dont think we should sit and wait for them to come over here.

Wow the Hitler comparison, pulled out when you need it, but blasted if I use it.

They weren't breeding terrorists.

Human rights violations occur in Saudi Arabia as we speak, but Bush has time to fag it up with the Prince all the time. Hmmm.....How many terrorists were from Saudi Arabia? Hmmm.....

Bush never lied!  All reports have said that Bush did not lie.  Yet you fail to give him your benefit of the doubt.  What was it, "innocent until proven guilty?" 

I have listed his lies, your memory should be checked.

Oh, my bad, it was his intelligence that dropped the ball.

Just like Newsweeks.......

 So to say he made it up or lied is just plain dumb and misleading.

Members of Bush's cabinet have come forward to admit it.

New memo says "We need to find a reason to go to war." Something to go over with the public.

In addition, while the stakes were high in going to war, so was the stakes for not going to war if the intelligence was true.  With the Newseek story, there were no high stakes present in not corroborating the story.  Why couldnt they wait?

Why couldn't Bush wait?

The stakes were MUCH HIGHER and there certainly was no rush.

Stupid comment man.


Glad you waited till the adminstration replied before you found them guilty.  "Innocent until proven guilty?"

They did not and will not reply, instead the had a big news conference about Newsweek.

Wow, the timing is amazing! 

[GnRNightrain]

The proof has been given out time and time again.

I have posted links to blacks who WON A LAWSUIT for being turned away for their right to vote.

Yet you claim that the Bush, and his campaign, were the ones that conspired to steal the election in Florida.  You give them no such benefit of the doubt.  You also disregard the US Civil Rights Commission that said your accusations are crap.  You pick and choose based on your agenda.  You clearly hold one side to one standard, and the other side to another.

Cheney is still tied to Haliburton financially, and they overcharged the tax payer by millions, that is proof enough for me.

This means that Cheney decided to wage a war to make money?  That is ridiculous, and your proof would get thrown out of court in a second.  Yet, you claim to give accusations "innocent until proven guilty."  My gosh you are stubborn.

Building permanant bases in Iraq is proof enough.

Proof of what?  That we went to war there and sacrificed tons of lives so that we could have a fucking base in Iraq?

This is one guy trying to print a story, that wasnt properly corroborated and people died as a result.? ?The war in Iraq was backed by most all of the democratic senators, including your beloved John Kerry.? Clinton thought such weapons existed, and so did 5 other national intelligence agencies across the globe.? So for you to say Bush made it up out of thin air is just flat out ridiculous, and shows that you certainly dont apply your same tough standard across the board.

Dems (and republicans) were misled into voting for war. Many have stated as such and sorry they voted as they did (including right-wing).

Clinton did not take us to war.

Surely they retract their vote in hindsight.  Haha, and you buy that shit.  My gosh.  Of course in hindsight it wasnt a popular vote, but since you hate Bush so much you are willing to place all the blame on him and say that he misled.  The fact is they were privy to the same information. 

Clinton didnt take us to war, but he said the information that Bush presented was the same information he had.  Therefore, your fucking bomb showing that Bush is a liar is fucking bullshit.  You cant fucking figure this out, you act like Bush made this shit out of thin air in order to attack Iraq.  You fail to ackknowledge that other countries had the same intelligence and that Democrats, including Clinton and those on the senate intelligence committee that were privy to the same information, also came to the same conclusion as Bush.  By calling him a liar you just sound stupid.  Was he wrong, yes.  Was he a liar, no.

Like I said, they were prisoners who were found innocent and released that made these statements.

The same standard of taking a country to war does not apply?

If you think that the intelligence of over 5 different countries, a former DEMOCRATIC President, the senate foreign intelligence committee is less evidence than some prisoners that claim abuse then so be it. 

Certainly they dont, neither did Hitler's Germany.? However, when there are such human rights violations and they are breeding terrorists I dont think we should sit and wait for them to come over here.

Wow the Hitler comparison, pulled out when you need it, but blasted if I use it.

Its not using Hitler that you get blasted for, its the comparison that you make it to that you get blasted for. 

Human rights violations occur in Saudi Arabia as we speak, but Bush has time to fag it up with the Prince all the time. Hmmm.....How many terrorists were from Saudi Arabia? Hmmm.....

Certainly world affairs are too complicated for you to handle.  If you dont see the difference with Saudi Arabia and Iraq then Im not sure what to say.  The world doesnt believe the Saudis have WMDs, and the Saudi Arabia is not a dictatorship that oppresses the rest of the country.  In fact, the Saudi royals are far more moderate than the average Saudi citizen.  Do you think it would be smart to oust them when there is no hope of establishing a government that is not fanatic?

I have listed his lies, your memory should be checked.

Oh, my bad, it was his intelligence that dropped the ball.

Just like Newsweeks.......

Are you going to say Clinton lied?  Are you going to say that John Kerry and the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committe lied?  Are you going to say that Jordan, Russia, France, Britain, and our intelligence agencies all lied?

Or are you just going to stick to your guns and blame this on a big Bush conspiracy to take over Iraq?  Everything is Bush's fault.  Did her force a gun to these people's heads?  How come you will never acknowledge the fact that other people thought the same thing?  Isnt that pretty good evidence that Bush didnt lie?

Members of Bush's cabinet have come forward to admit it.

That he lied or that the intelligence was wrong?

New memo says "We need to find a reason to go to war." Something to go over with the public.

Can you post a link to this memo?

Why couldn't Bush wait?

He did wait.  He went to the UN, and had them pass a resolution.  It was not until Iraq failed to abide by the terms of the resolution that the US attacked.  We gave them lots of time.  If we were so set on invading them no matter what, then why did we go to the UN?  If Bush knew that all of his information was made up, then why would he take the risk that Suddam might comply with the UN and that the UN would exonerate him?  It makes no sense