Thirteen words vs. 16: The Newsweek non-story
The Bush administration is reportedly "furious" over Newsweek's now-retracted story alleging that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay may have flushed a Koran down the toilet while questioning prisoners.
"People lost their lives. People are dead," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, referring to at least 15 people who died in protests in Afghanistan following the Koran disclosures. "People need to be very careful about what they say, just as they need to be careful about what they do."
"It's appalling that this story got out there," intoned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher was also appalled, he said, that "an article that was unfounded to begin with has caused so much harm, including loss of life."
Appalling, indeed. Except for the fact that this "article," this "story," was neither. It was 13 words, with no further elaboration or mention -- this part of one sentence:
"Interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Koran down the toilet ..."
Now compare those 13 words -- and the harm done, including loss of life -- to these 16:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Newsweek's possibly inaccurate reporting -- the Pentagon is has not closed its investigation into alleged Koran-flushing -- is the big story on every news channel, and will be exploited by the blogosphere's right-wing ozone holes to further vilify the media as liberal and anti-American. But George Bush's 16-word State of the Union fabrication about Saddam having his yellowcake -- well, the right wing has eaten that, making all gone.
In the eyes of Bush propagandists and apologists, being careful about what you say applies only when the "you" is not them.
Yes, people died. But many, many more have died during our unnecessary, illegal war on Iraq -- a war justified on dire warnings of imminent mushroom clouds and cooked intelligence like Bush's uranium allegation. Including civilians and allied forces, the official death count is over 23,400 -- and that's the minimum number, as painstaking estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths range tens of thousands higher.
But that's old news. The Newsweek retraction is hot and fresh, allowing the cable news shows to do what they do best -- heat up ratings, while shedding no light, with easy, inexpensive, you-suck-no-you-suck partisan demogoguery.
I could point out here that Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, last Thursday attributed the violence in Afghanistan to that country's "political reconciliation" process. I could also point out that had we not abandoned Afghanistan for Bush's manliness-proving Iraq venture, American security forces might have been able to quell the violence -- no matter what the cause -- before anyone died.
Thirdly, I could point out the British government memo confirming that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." I could add that this smoking gun has generated nowhere near the U.S. media coverage over a period of weeks that the Newsweek apology and retraction has in two days.
But I won't. Instead I'll note only that at least Newsweek had the class to admit a possible error. And I'll leave you with the words of that inveterate seeker and teller of truth, White House spokesman Scott McLellan.
"The (Newsweek) report has had serious consequences," he scolded on Monday. "People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged. I just find it puzzling."
Puzzling indeed, Scott. Who would have thought that reckless, unfounded claims could have profoundly disastrous consequences.
http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=356
