I liked Michelle's post overall but I think she's wrong when she so easily and quickly says "I do not think the magazine lied."

You can excuse yourself as "reckless and sloppy and wrong" once. Maybe twice. Three times is pushing it. Fifty, a hundred, five hundred times? Bullshit. Newsweek lied all right. The question is, are we going to be as insistent about claiming that the MSM is basically interested in telling the truth as we are about claiming that Islam is basically a religion of peace?

Stopped reading Newsweek when I was a teenager because I found it too low-brow. When a teenager finds your magazine stupid, you have problems.

Out here in L.A. I had talk radio on, and the "Fair-minded Civil Rights Attorney," Leo Tyrell (his own characterization, by the way) and his traffic guy were speculating that this was a big frame-up by the military to discredit Newsweek and distract people from bad news in Iraq.

I'm frankly disappointed that they didn't also mention the space-based mind contorl beams that duped Newsweek's editors into running with the story, but perhaps I've said too much.

Sorry Ace,

I think she was off the track this time.

Perhaps she smelled the blood of the MSM and went for the kill losing track of the big picture.

Word Don't Kill, People Kill

I don't understand what's so difficult about this. Recognizing the fact that Newsweek deliberately incited violence against the United States in no way absolves the perpetrators of that violence, nor does it allay or mitigate their guilt. Nor does it justify their murderous rage over an allegation (irrelevant entirely whether it were false, unproven, or true) of desecration.

It merely recognizes the fact that Newsweek acted in a manner indistinguishable from treason.

Newsweek deliberately incited violence

Was Newsweek wrong? The answer seems to be yes.

Did Newsweek incite violence? The answer is clearly NO.

Direct your anger where it is due, to the actually perpetrators who incited the violence.

How is the answer "clearly no?"

I'll take second place to no one in my hatred and my contempt for the Islamofascist lunatics who murder and pillage and rape and burn over the supposed defilement of a book.

But at the same time I'll look the facts at squarely when fifth columns inside our own country publicize stories (again, true or false: irrelevant) that they KNOW, KNOW, KNOW will work to the detriment of our war aims.

It's been a while, and I'm retired now, but I once took an oath to defend this country against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. With the publication and dissemination of this story Newsweek has unequivocally fallen into the latter category, and despite the fact that I've moved on to a private practice my oath still holds.

It takes a special blindness to insist, in the face of all available evidence, that journalists are too naive to understand the repercussions of their actions. I'm not saying that applies to you: I'm saying you (and Dave, who tried to make the same argument) are missing the trees that make up the forest.

It's going to hurt like a sonofabitch when you walk into one.

Bull!

The Pentagon has claimed that the incident did not occur. Although the corporate media are now reporting that Newsweek had "backed off" the report, that isn't true.

Newsweek explains that in response to Pentagon queries,

"On Saturday, Isikoff spoke to his original source, the senior government official, who said that he clearly recalled reading investigative reports about mishandling the Qur'an, including a toilet incident. But the official, still speaking anonymously, could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced in the SouthCom report."

Isikoff's source, in other words, stands by his report of the incident, but is merely tracing it to other paperwork. What difference does that make? Although Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita angrily denounced the source as no longer credible, in the real world you can't just get rid of a witness because the person made a minor mistake with regard to a text citation. It is like saying that we can't be sure someone has really read the Gospels because he said he read about Caiaphas in the Gospel of Mark rather than in the Gospel of John.

Newsweek has, in other words, confirmed that the source did read a US government account of the desecration of the Koran.

Nor is this the first such indication of this sort of incident. On August 18, 2004, ANSA, the Italian news agency, wrote of the families of detainees from Bahrain at Guantanamo:

"The families' anxiety grew after the publication of a report by the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR), which contained information about tortures and maltreatment of prisoners. The report, based on testimony by three former Guantanamo prisoners,
Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmad, defines as brutal the methods of the U.S. jailers. According to the report, prisoners were brutally beaten and compelled to watch other prisoners sodomising each other by force. The 150-page document says reptiles were taken to the cells in an attempt to force prisoner confessions, while the Koran was thrown into the toilets before the eyes of the detained."

Megan,

You're wrong.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

The necessary and sufficient reply to that hysterical little post is this: screw the Koran.

The facts are irrelevant. Regardless of the truth or falsity of the story, regardless of the credibility of their sources, Newsweek should not have published the story.

(Last reply was to Jeff132, not Dave)

Dave,

Nuh-uh, you're wrong. :)

Cheers... hey, what're you drinking? I'm on Chivas this morning myself, though not Garfield Ridge.

There are several ways to address this and so let me start by saying that Michael Moore caused us more damage than the Newsweek article did.

With regards to the "Arab Street", these people wander around all day just looking for an excuse to riot and burn a US flag. Regardless of whether the story is true or not, they are still going to go on a rampage.

If you can understand that, then you can see that the issue of being "offended" was simply a red herring.

What angers me is not the Newsweek article, it is the comments by Condoleeza Rice.

Megan--

At work early, enjoying my life of indentured servitude.

BTW, I agree with your stance on Newsweek. I just think that it's a tactical battle in a strategic campaign.

The shit Newsweek pulled makes it harder for us to win the war-- but it shouldn't be confused for the war itself.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

P.S. Chivas? That's a pick-me-up. . .

LHM -

Agreed on all points. I just don't see how excusing Newsweek for their treasonous conduct buys us any points anywhere.

Dave -

Tactical engagements always serve a greater strategy in the hands of a good general. I agree with all your points, and LHM's - I just want you guys to acknowledge mine. Newsweek acted unconscionably and deserves to be punished though it almost certainly won't be.

And Chivas is of course a pick-me-up - that's why I'm drinking it...

Addendum: Geraghty is completely wrong when he says "I can't begrudge Newsweek for looking into the story, or for digging into it when they first heard the sensational allegation of abusing the Koran."

He absolutely can and should begrudge Newsweek exactly that. Hurling a tank of gasoline onto an arson site is not a benign act, regardless of whether you've bought the gasoline legally or not, regardless of whether the guy who sold you the gasoline sold it to you under false pretences or not.

That is what Newsweek did. Once again: criticizing them for their contribution to "international unrest" in no way excuses the people responsible for the unrest in the first place. Arguing that it does is the most pathetic of straw men.

Addendum to the addendum: right now I'm listening to Emmylou Harris, Goin' Back to Harlan, oddly enough. These lyrics seem curiously appropriate:

"Bounce the bow, rock the gallows
For the hangman's reel
And wake the devil from his dream"

I guess I just don't get why y'all want to defend this shit.

"I just don't see how excusing Newsweek for their treasonous conduct buys us any points anywhere."

Forget about buying points, we should be more concerned with losing points.

The problem comes when we excoriate and punish Newsweek - the Muslim world will think it was due to their rampage and the demands of the governments of Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

If Newsweek is to be censured, then would it not be reasonable to censure The Arab Media as well for actually inciting the violence?

LHM -

"The problem comes when we excoriate and punish Newsweek - the Muslim world will think it was due to their rampage"

This is precisely where your argument breaks down. On the one hand you're arguing, who cares what the Arabs think? They're animals who're going to attack us anyway. (And I agree with that point.) Then you follow up with "We should be careful because the Arabs will take our coming down hard on Newsweek as gov't pressure and we shouldn't give them that impression."

The two positions are simply incompatible.

My position is simple. Newsweek harmed the United States. The Arabs harm the United States. Punish them both. As for the Arab media, of course we should bitchslap (or even dismantle) them as well - goes without saying. Not sure which audience you think you're speaking to here...

Megan,

There are a few reasons as to why Newsweek should not be punished.

That is just what the Arabs want us to do. Disregard our own First Amendment and punish Newsweek while we give those who desecrate the Bible a pass.

Secondly, We don't want to be seen punishing Newsweek as a response to the violence. Guess what the Arabs will do next time they are offended.

The First Amendment does not cover the provision of aid and comfort to declared enemies of the United States.

Megan,

There is no breakdown in the arguement.

I think that our initial response should have been simply to ignore the Arabs and let them go on a rampage and kill each other.

This is not what happened. What happened is that Condoleeza Rice made overtures to appease the Arabs in response to the violence.

And so.. now what should we do.

The answer is nothing - ignore their requests that we punish Newsweek and tell them to go pound sand.

I'm not an Arab, LHM. [happily ignoring a quarter of her ancestry] I love Dr Rice and I hate to say a word against her but the "dhimmi" accusation, unfortunately, hits the mark. Her remarks were shameful.

The correct answer is to address both our internal and our external enemies simultaneously. We have the resources - let's play the game like we mean to win.

NEWSWEAK.

What sticks in my craw is the way our government and media give more deference to Islam than to, say, Christianity or Shintoism. Where's the ACLU here, shouldn't they be protesting the government's special exemption for Islam? I suspect it feeds the irrationality of the Islamic world that we afford their religion more respect than any other, it is almost like the US is endorsing Islam. "If the infidel US is flagellating itself over this Koran thing, we are justified in going apeshit in the streets. And next week. And the week after that."

I don't have any problem with being polite, but I don't think the US should be crawling in regards to a damn book, especially when there is absolutely nothing illegal in doing anything to it. If the media is going to have vapors on the issue, just give our interrogators NEA grants and turn the interrogations into "performance art." That'd shut up Newsweek, or at least get them eating each other.

Watching the little minion on newsweek last night made my stomach turn. It was so similar to the dance that CBS was doing after the "national Guard Memos". We are not sticking to he story but will still stand by the possibility that it might have happened. How much pathetic BS is that?

Well, rather than repeat myself, I'll just do a little link-whoring and point to my blog-post here. It pretty much sums up how I feel about this, and reprises a lot of stuff I wrote on an earlier thread.

I agree totally with Megan. One of the intangible forces in a war is the motivation of your troops. In providing a perceived justification and thus motivation to our enemies, Newsweek is knowingly undermining our war effort. In my book that calls for severe punishment.

The MSM media regularly covers up reporting or showing graphic picturesd of Muslim atrocities on the grounds it would be just so upsetting to the American people and make them shudder, shudder BIASED against the noble Religion of Peace.

BUt love any chance to bash America with graphic pics of stray bomb damage, torture photos as long as it is done by America and reflects badly on us.

Which is why Abu Ghraib pictures were run for months, but unless you saw it live back then, video and pictures of people jumping from the WTC rather than die by burning - don't exist. Why pictures of orange jump-suited prisoners being "abused" at Guantanomo are lovingly resurrected anytime a story is done on "the denial of their civil rights" lawsuits, but video or pictures of orange suited Nick Berg having his head sawed off by Muslim animals are deemed "too graphic, disturbing for the American public to see".

And why the media loves to run stories about how a sacred Mosque was fired on and possibly damaged by American troops after the Muslim fanatics shot RPG rounds from it....desecration of Muslim Koran and other sensibilities....remember how the media told us fighting our enemy during Ramadan "would offend all Islam??" At the same time, they fail to mention the regular decsecration of Bibles in Saudi Arabia, churches in Egypt, or barely report that 3 of 4 Japanese hostages were executed when their captors found out they were Christians...

I guess we can get two truths out of this.

1. The media prefers to run stories that cast America as the bad guys more than run stories showing we don't condone torture or desecration of religious objects as a society. That it will never describe a fallen soldier as a hero when they can be cast as a helpless tragic victim of Bush's wormongering. That the MSM risks a great deal if the public sees them allied with our enemies....why should I buy Newsweek or listen to CNN after their disloyal antics?

2. The media is more respectful and deferential to Jews and Muslims than Christians. Bashing Christians is safe. Criticizing the state of Israel over anything is not safe. Nor is it "safe" to be calling out Muslims on their intolerance, bigotry, and propensity to support terrorism and other acts of violence and oppression directed at non-Muslims.

That is just what the Arabs want us to do. Disregard our own First Amendment and punish Newsweek while we give those who desecrate the Bible a pass.

Actually, if the American public decides to 'punish' Newsweek by no longer purchasing the magazine, this is not a violation of the First Amendment at all. Newsweek may have protection under the First as a journalistic enterprise, but it does not have the right to expect people to purchase it.

I don't think the government is talking about 'punishing' the magazine. Most people are reacting with understandable outrage and making individual decisions to take their money elsewhere.

At least nine people were killed yesterday as a wave of anti-American demonstrations swept the Islamic world from the Gaza Strip to the Java Sea,

Maybe they'd all just seen the movie Kingdom of Heaven.

Somebody call Ward Churchill.
The MSM chickens have come home to roost...again.
This is not the first time that anti-American misinformation/half-truths/propaganda has cost lives, but the sad part is, it usually costs American lives. The difference is that when it costs American lives, no one cares. This time, however, we've inflamed Muslims, and boy, don't we feel bad?? The left always asks "Why do they hate us?" Here is the answer. It is the US media and Hollywood, as they've been doing for decades, painting America in a bad light. I remember the first time I went overseas in the 80's, and tried to describe where I lived in California. Folks couldn't speak English, but would query "Falcon Crest?" associating a tv show with reality. Everyone also figured I lived on the beach and had palm trees in the yard. It was innocuous, but showed a distorted view of reality that I only truly grasped when I myself lived overseas in the 90's. Then I saw the news that the rest of the world sees about our country, served up to them by our own MSM. It is no wonder they hate us, for if all you knew about this country you got through the bias of Michael Moore and Dan Rather, then you too would be wanting to steer clear of the American 'ideals' the hateful MSM proffers. McCarthy was right.

It is no wonder they hate us, for if all you knew about this country you got through the bias of Michael Moore and Dan Rather ...

And like Ward Churchill (who will get away with it too), the MSM won't stop until we stop them by boycotting their sponsors.

This is why I keep repeating that:

THE RIGHT MUST BOYCOTT!!!

LHM - Secondly, We don't want to be seen punishing Newsweek as a response to the violence. Guess what the Arabs will do next time they are offended.

I'm with Megan on this one. Inciting violence against America by Americans is treason. Governmental punishing of Newsweek isn't going to encourage any further violence than is already frothing in their rabies infected mouths. The radicals have been bred for hatred and violence and have proven to release it without provocation. The only way to change that is to do what we are in Iraq.

As for Newsweek being punished, I whole-heartedly agree that the public should do the most damage by not buying the piece of shit rag. Unfortunately, there are enough people in the world who live for this kind of crap and enough U.S. citizens without a scrap of patriotism who support it. Then there are those who believe in nothing and can overlook this kind of thing because they don't see it affecting them directly.

I wonder how many of the dead were Moslems? I'd venture to guess most or all of them were, sounds like a deadly plot by the CIA, or perhaps we have merely stumbled across the ultimate weapon of mass destruction: rumors of toilets full of the Koran.

Wow, if we were to actually fill real toilets with Korans all over the Islamic world and keep doing it, would they riot and kill each other off?

Flush, flush, flush ...

alex fs

I suspect it feeds the irrationality of the Islamic world that we afford their religion more respect than any other, it is almost like the US is endorsing Islam. "If the infidel US is flagellating itself over this Koran thing, we are justified in going apeshit in the streets. And next week. And the week after that."

True, but to Moslems, it proves that we are afraid of them and in the Islamic world, to be appear to be fearful is to invite violence. It also proves to them how effective a tool violence is that we would cowtow to them because of it. The more violence the more deferential Liberals seem to get, and every time we are deferential, (as in Kingdom of Heaven), we invite more violence.

The only way to break the cycle is to boycott mags like Newsweek.

THE RIGHT MUST BOYCOTT!!!

You guys are assuming there are toilets to flush.

Maybe if we made Origami flowers and duckies out of the pages and distributed them in the name of peace and love, they would see that we're really not evil infidels and would learn to love us like brothers. Then we could all wash our feet in the sink, share a party bowl, get the munchies and laugh hysterically at The Life of Brian.