Newsweek Lied, People Died

What sloppy journalism? The story stands.
Gung-ho was Bush's spokesman who tried to wish the results of his own policy on a short piece in the inside page of a magazine.

I still take task with that.

Iskoff did no more than what the Administration asks reporters to do at Daily Press Briefings all the time; namely, to use an anonymous source. The WH uses this literally every day of the week.

After pressure was applied by the WH to find a scapegoat for the Afghan riots, the source claimed he didn't know exactly where he read the information. NOT that he didn't read the info, just that he didn't know WHERE he read the info.

This, combined with the incessant cackling of the Right Wing, forced Newsweek to make a partial retraction of the story; but they didn't do anything wrong. Corroborating evdience has shown that their story was accurate. They were merely a pawn in the Admin's political game of denial of responsibility.

You don't have to be gung ho to embarrass the Bush admin these days; you just have to be a reporter who actually reports events that happen. The admin does all the embarassing themselves.

Cycloptichorn

I've posted sufficiently about the sloppy journalism exhibited by Newsweek. Whether the riots were caused by their Periscope article or not has no bearing on that issue.

Gawd! What an ignorant thing to say when faced with the FACT that McClellan (who speaks for Bush and the administration) LIED about the cause of the rioting and deaths!

Sloppy journalism ISN'T the issue.

The title of the thread is "Newsweek Lied, People Died," not "Newsweeks Sloppy Reporting."

Try going back to page 7 so I don't have to cut and paste and repeat.

Did McClellan LIE or was he merely mistaking?

(When answering, keep in mind the Generals report PRIOR to McClellans statements which indicated no relationship between the rioting and Newsweek.)

The "bearing" in this case is in the intentional denegration of the media for the purpose of controlling the news and the people.

Sheesh!

Exactly, Squinney.

Tico, given the information I have said about Newsweek's source and the fact that they DIDN'T cause the riots in Afghanistan, how can you claim that they are responsible for sloppy reporting? Their claims have been mirrored in many other places now, and was never really retracted fully in the first place!

Cycloptichorn

"Dewey Wins" Truman concedes.

hmmm.

first there is unsubstantiated info.

use of unsubstantiated info leads to violence and multiple deaths...

whitehouse spins it...

whitehouse gets caught spinning...

whitehouse claims it never said any such thing...


has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it ?

Apparently you weren't paying attention when I mentioned that the rioting/deaths is not the issue FOR ME. And although I'm sure you would like to pick out what you think should be the issue FOR ME should be, I shan't be inviting you to do that at this time.




If you'll go back to my first post in this thread, you'll see what the issue is FOR ME. Please do that so I don't have to repeat.



Since you're fond of frequently suggesting road trips to the White House, why don't you head up there and try and find out?



Again, it has no bearing on the issues FOR ME.

Read through my prior posts in this thread for your answer, Cyclops.

I take it you are adopting blatham's position that the anonymous source (or "sources," depending on whom you believe) is reliable, even though he can't recall where he read what he read, and in light of Newsweeks more recent Toiletgate Part II article which I posted HERE.

Did you read that article? Do you share blatham's opinion that the DoD spokesperson is a liar, but the suspected terrorists are credible? (On second thought, you don't need to answer that last question. There is no doubt in my mind that you do indeed share that opinion.)

And why not? There is every reason to believe the DoD is pressured not to tell the truth on this issue, and no reason to believe that the terror suspects (who are innocent until proven guilty, mind you) would lie about Koran abuse.

In fact, many terror suspects apparently are lying independently about the incident, according to you, and the DoD isn't covering anything up.

It strikes me as funny that you are perfectly willing to believe that we kill people, torture them with dogs and electric shocks, and detain them indefinately without trial, but you don't believe that we would deface the Koran to torture them. Funny

Cycloptichorn

I'm all for fanatical muslim militants rioting and killing each other. Saves on the bullet budget.



"Trust me. Newsweek would never make up a story."

Source

Of course you completely discredit the account of the DoD spokeperson who explains that is EXACTLY what the suspected terrorists did.

And cjhsa makes my point rather nicely.

Thanks.

Cyclopitchorn would be amusing if we weren't talking about such a serious issue. First of all, cycloptichorn and,I am sure, Walter Hintler, would sternly preach that we must capture the "moral high ground. There is NO POSITIVE PROOF that the Koran in the toilet incidents occured. However, there is a clear cut record that within hours of the Intefada, Arab mobs torched Joseph's tomb and the Torah scrolls inside. Several days later, they burned down the ancient synagog of Jerico.

I do not recall a cover story from Newsweek what those recorded incidents occured.

I feel much the same way about the new Florida self-defense laws. Too many people living there from an environmental perspective. Go to it, boys and girls.

Let's all try and live in the "now" if we can.

If I proved a "point" then someone is on the wrong side of point.

Cyclopitchorn also predictably raises the old chestnut about Bush Lied. Did he? Can it be proved that he lied or can it be shown that he relied on intelligence sources.
Those who claim that Bush lied about WMD's evidently do not recall the speech given to the American people by Bill Clinton on 12/16/1998( coincidentally, while his impeachment hearings were going on) to the effect that he was ordering American Armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq( Done, of course, without the assent of the Congress of the United States in contradistincion to the approval gained by President Bush to go into Iraq)

In that speech, Clinton has a great deal to say abou WMD's. I am afraid that Cyclopitchorn never read the speech. A close reading would suggest that Clinton was quite concerned that Saddam would build up his WMD supply--that was why Clinton was striking at Iraq on 12/16/1998.


I wonder if Cyclopitchorn thinks Clinton was lying when he said that:

quote

"And so we had to act and act now.

Letme explain why.

First, without a srtrong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear system in months, notyears.

Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the interantional community--led by the United States--has simply lost its will. He will surmize that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction , and someday, MAKE NO MISTAKE--HE WILL USE IT AGAIN AS HE HAS IN THE PAST....

I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. THEY ARE DESIGNED TO DEGRADE SADDAM'S CAPACITY TO DEVELOP AND DELIVER WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND TO DEGRADE HIS ABILITY TO THREATEN HIS NEIGHBORS...

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to CONTAIN SADDAM'S WEAPONS OF JMASSDESTRUCTION PROGRAM.CURTAIL HIS AGGRESSION AND PREVENT ANOTHER GULF WAR....

The best way to end that threat once and for all is WITH A NEW IRAQI GOVERNMENT- A GOVERNMENT READY TO LIVE IN PEACE WITH ITS NEIGNBORS....

If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. AND MARK MY WORDS, HE WILL DEVELOP WEQAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. HE WILL DEPLOY THEM AND HE WILL USE THEM"



end of quotes


DId Cyclopitchorn miss that Clinton speech?????

Well, I don't want to restart a discussion with you which ended abruptly months (years) ago