Newsweek Lied, People Died

Thank you, but that is obviously not a retraction, but simply another opportunity for you to make a scurrilous remark about those with whom you disagree. Your reference to the "intelligence community" is very much to the point, because it does not refer to the entire population of the West. Nor does any description of those who reside in China, and Russia is an iffy proposition when one refers to the West. Also, you are ignoring that your sources allege that these views were held by the "intelligence communities" of France, Germany, Russia and China--but you have provided no French, German, Russian or Chinese sources to validate the claim.

So, leaving aside you partisan attack on those with whom you disagree, you have still not acknowledged that in the West, people for whom you have no authority to characterize in such a scurrilous, partisan manner as liberal, cannot be reasonably said to have assumed that Saddam possessed WoMD.

That's not a retraction, it's just a nasty rejoinder.

While it is true that most lawyers are paid, not all are. The fact of getting paid is not a requirement that determines whether an attorney represents or defends a client. But you apparently know this as you have referenced "pro bono". That being the case, I don't understand what distinction you are trying to make with your comment that most lawyers are hired. What is true is that lawyers have a purpose in representing and defending their clients. And while you are correct that in the context of an attorney defending a client at trial, the facts are adduced in the courtroom, in our context, the facts are already on the record, and this is more like an appellate arguement. You are taking the facts and presenting them in such a way as to frame an argument in favor of a position. The position you have elected to take is to defend the policies and practices of Saddam Hussein. Often, lawyers will appear and make an argument in favor of one side or the other, not representing either.

Whether you like my analogy to a lawyer or not, your contention that one who just uses facts is not defending someone is spurious.

Whether I communicated effectively? Are you using this to bait Setanta? :-D

I will stand by what I said whether it was effective or not. I would hope to change it based on my identifying that it was incorrect prior to someone identifying it for me.

Man, I think I am getting dizzy....

I wasn't trying to bait Set ... it doesn't take any effort to do that. He usually lashes out when he feels like it.

Ticomaya wrote:

While it is true that most lawyers are paid, not all are. The fact of getting paid is not a requirement that determines whether an attorney represents or defends a client. But you apparently know this as you have referenced "pro bono". That being the case, I don't understand what distinction you are trying to make with your comment that most lawyers are hired. What is true is that lawyers have a purpose in representing and defending their clients. And while you are correct that in the context of an attorney defending a client at trial, the facts are adduced in the courtroom, in our context, the facts are already on the record, and this is more like an appellate arguement. You are taking the facts and presenting them in such a way as to frame an argument in favor of a position. The position you have elected to take is to defend the policies and practices of Saddam Hussein. Often, lawyers will appear and make an argument in favor of one side or the other, not representing either.

Whether you like my analogy to a lawyer or not, your contention that one who just uses facts is not defending someone is spurious.

You might have a point of the topic of the debate was "Were Saddam's policies good or bad?" However that is not the topic. The topic in a court room boils down to "Is the defendant guilty or not?" In both those topics it is obvious that one side takes a defensive stand for the person accused. In this case the topic appears to be "Was invasion the only way to insure that Saddam didn't have WMD?" I contend it was not but it hardly equates to defending Saddam. Continuing inspections was hardly a defense of Saddam and his policies. It was a very real attempt to thwart his possible policies of attaining WMD.

Let me give you another example. If the topic is "Should murderers be jailed for life or given the death penalty?" does that mean one side is on the side of murderers if they ask for evidence to support a claim that the death penalty acts as a deterrence for murder? I don't think so. Do you?


You have claimed in this case the facts are already in evidence. However I contend they are not since you still have not answered my question about when Saddam failed to cooperate with inspectors in 2003. What we have is a claim of fact, then a failure to support that fact, then an attack on the questioner for asking for evidence of said fact. Certainly if Saddam had failed to cooperate with the inspectors in 2003 then it could logically lead to a need to invade. However simply claiming he did so does not make it a fact. That is why I asked you to cite evidence of said non cooperation.

Ticomaya wrote:

I wasn't trying to bait Set ... it doesn't take any effort to do that. He usually lashes out when he feels like it.

I nominate this for most disingenuous statement of the year.

Ticomaya wrote:

I wasn't trying to bait Set ... it doesn't take any effort to do that. He usually lashes out when he feels like it.

I nominate this for most disingenuous statement of the year.

Let me give you another example. If the topic is "Should murderers be jailed for life or given the death penalty?" does that mean one side is on the side of murderers if they ask for evidence to support a claim that the death penalty acts as a deterrence for murder? I don't think so. Do you?

You've done no research for me, Tico. You have only attempted to support, and failed to support, a contention that "the West" believed that Iraq had WoMD. You have of course, taken every opportunity for the cheap shot which you could make. Those occassions upon which i have pointed out to you that you know nothing about me have not ever been in regard to what my politics may or may not be. Neither is there any justification for your ludicrous contention that such is a standard rejoinder on my part.

Once again, you have not supported your contention, nor have you retracted your statement. Your continued position seeks to suggest that only "bleeding heart liberals" did not believe that Iraq possessed WoMD. You have not made your case.

Setanta wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

I wasn't trying to bait Set ... it doesn't take any effort to do that. He usually lashes out when he feels like it.

I nominate this for most disingenuous statement of the year.

Do you require a quorum?

Do me a favor and say this 10 times for me: "Intelligence community."

Intrepid wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

I wasn't trying to bait Set ... it doesn't take any effort to do that. He usually lashes out when he feels like it.

I nominate this for most disingenuous statement of the year.

Do you require a quorum?

A show of hands will do . . .

Ticomaya wrote:

Do me a favor and say this 10 times for me: "Intelligence community."

Had you written that only once at the outset, none of this would have come up. I cannot be blamed for the lack of specificity on your part.

Newsweek Told Koran Flush Story Was 'Slam Dunk'
by Scott Ott

(2005-05-16) -- An unnamed former top government official told a Newsweek magazine reporter that his story, about a U.S. military guard at Guantanamo prison flushing a Koran down a toilet, was "a slam dunk," according to the latest apology from Newsweek editor Mark Whitaker.

The magazine's uncorroborated, single-source, hearsay report of the Koran desecration sparked riots in several Muslim countries, killing at least 15 and injuring perhaps 100.

While the magazine has apologized publicly to the riot victims and their families, Mr. Whitaker told the New York Times, "We're not retracting anything. We don't know what the ultimate facts are."

For those unschooled in professional journalistic ethics, Mr. Whitaker explained that a retraction demands a higher standard of evidence than an ordinary news item.

"You don't just rush to press with a retraction until you nail down the facts," he added.

Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff said his anonymous source is now unsure where he got the Koran-flushing information, which was broadcast across the Arab world by Al-Jazeera and others.

"If there's a bright side to this story," said Mr. Whitaker. "At least our anonymous sources are safe, unharmed. And of course, our advertisers now know that Newsweek has great credibility in the Arab world, despite the bad feelings that Muslims have about America in general."

In an effort to help in the grieving process, the magazine's publisher said that immediate family members of the dead would receive a free 90-day trial subscription to Newsweek.

"If they're done grieving after 90 days, they can write 'cancel' on the invoice and pay nothing," he said. "Otherwise we'll just bill their credit cards in three easy installments at a substantial savings off the newstand price."