Newsweek Lied, People Died

You presented that picture in jest, Tico, but there is a whole lot of truth in it.

Realizing that the majority of the world, after the WMD-non-existance fiasco, sees the Bush admin as liars,

There is absolutely no way to spin this to undo any damage it might have caused. There is no way that any retraction is going to be seen as anything other than a political move (which it was/is). Therefore, instead of going after Newsweek, what SHOULD we be doing to help the situation?

Cycloptichorn

Although the underlying issue in a trial might be whether the defendant murdered the victim, there are any number of sub-issues to be resolved along the way to that ultimate issue ... such as whether the defendant had a good alibi, or owned the murder weapon, etc.

The issue we were debating was whether Saddam cooperated. You maintain he did. In that regard, you were defending him against the charge from me that he didn't cooperate.

Hell, if I can't get you to admit you were defending Saddam against my allegation that he failed to cooperate with weapons inspectors, there's no way I'll convince you of anything.

Bear in mind that the only way to prove absolutely whether WMD existed was to invade and inspect, as was done. Saddam wasn't cooperating with UN inspectors. It would have been poor leadership to take the word of a murderous tyrant, and ignore the intelligence reports that indicated Iraq had WMD.

In contrast, Newsweeks publishing the story was not intended to ferret out the truth and safeguard the nation. It was intended to try and embarrass the Bush Administration.

But surely you saw that distinction.

Quote:

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."

*Standard Dookie Disclaimer: This is, obviously, satire.

Ticomaya wrote:

Quote:

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."

*Standard Dookie Disclaimer: This is, obviously, satire.

Seems that Tico forgot to include his SOURCE

Ticomaya wrote:

Although the underlying issue in a trial might be whether the defendant murdered the victim, there are any number of sub-issues to be resolved along the way to that ultimate issue ... such as whether the defendant had a good alibi, or owned the murder weapon, etc.

The issue we were debating was whether Saddam cooperated. You maintain he did. In that regard, you were defending him against the charge from me that he didn't cooperate.

Hell, if I can't get you to admit you were defending Saddam against my allegation that he failed to cooperate with weapons inspectors, there's no way I'll convince you of anything.

Ticomaya wrote:

Bear in mind that the only way to prove absolutely whether WMD existed was to invade and inspect, as was done. Saddam wasn't cooperating with UN inspectors. It would have been poor leadership to take the word of a murderous tyrant, and ignore the intelligence reports that indicated Iraq had WMD.

In contrast, Newsweeks publishing the story was not intended to ferret out the truth and safeguard the nation. It was intended to try and embarrass the Bush Administration.

But surely you saw that distinction.

This is the argument you laid out Tico. Read it. Reflect on it. Look at your sentence structure and the paragraph. My understanding of the topic is "invasion was the only way to prove there were no WMD" You then used a suspect reason to support your claim that invasion was the only solution. Your claim of non cooperation was an attempt to support your position. I questioned your 'facts.' Without evidence of Saddam's refusal to cooperate with UN inspectors your statement falls apart. Armitage's statement about previous non cooperation is nothing but a red herring on your part. You stated quite clearly "Saddam wasn't cooperating with UN inspectors. " It is my understanding he was agreeing to cooperate with them. Reluctantly perhaps, but he still was cooperating in 2003.

We haven't even been able to address the other possible failing in your argument. The question of how inspections would be "ignoring the intelligence?"

Based on your arguments since this initial statement of yours Tico. I guess we can all agree that you are an "Invasion apologist." :wink:

Perhaps, but unlikely . . . after all, Intrepid was simply mistaken, as opposed to being willfully disingenuous, while strewing as many insulting remarks about his opponents through the thread as he could get away with . . .

Perhaps, but unlikely . . . after all, Intrepid was simply mistaken, as opposed to being willfully disingenuous, while strewing as many insulting remarks about his opponents through the thread as he could get away with . . .

Newsweek "lied" as much as Bush "lied." I think both relied on the intelligence they had at the time. I think Newsweek is guilty only of shoddy journalism fostered by an intense desire to embarrass the Bush administration. I think Bush is guilty of being fearful that Saddam had WMD he hadn't accounted for, and might turn them over to terrorists, and took appropriate action in light of that concern. After both acted on the information they had, we learn that Newsweek's information was apparently wrong, and we still don't know where the WMD are/went.

parados wrote:

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?

Bad analogy. It would be better if you were taking the side of a particular murderer, and maintained that he should not get the death penalty because he didn't commit the crime he was accused of.

because no WMD's have been found (a "fact" I'm not so sure I believe).

tico

Quote:

Newsweek "lied" as much as Bush "lied." I think both relied on the intelligence they had at the time. I think Newsweek is guilty only of shoddy journalism fostered by an intense desire to embarrass the Bush administration. I think Bush is guilty of being fearful that Saddam had WMD he hadn't accounted for, and might turn them over to terrorists, and took appropriate action in light of that concern. After both acted on the information they had, we learn that Newsweek's information was apparently wrong, and we still don't know where the WMD are/went.

Some of you folks on the right in modern america are such a curiosity. You simply can no longer think with any objective discernment at all. Isikoff, of all people, is out to embarrass the Bush administration?! Newsweek MADE him write this article, using torture perhaps? The administration official who said he's seen the information (though not sure in which government document) is out to embarrass his administration? The Pentagon official who vetted Isikoff's piece is out to embarrass the administration? The brit memo is a fake/forgery or false in some manner - even while Blair describes it not in any of those terms but as "nothing new"?

Quote:

because no WMD's have been found (a "fact" I'm not so sure I believe).

Really? Don't you think you would know about it by now if we had?

Cycloptichorn

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:

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?

Bad analogy. It would be better if you were taking the side of a particular murderer, and maintained that he should not get the death penalty because he didn't commit the crime he was accused of.

Just of of curisoity, Tico........Which crime did I say he didn't commit?