Newsweek Lied, People Died

How many major events have broken into the news only because an unnamed source had a conscience?

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.

That's not the way a free press works, Intrepid.

If it were, there would be no talking by inside sources that want to let the world know the crooked dealings taking place. There would have been no Watergate, no Iran Contra revelations, no understanding of what happened with the crash of the Savings and Loans, etc. There would be no inside information if every source had to risk their job (Life?) in order to let the people know there's wrong doing within the government.

How many major events have broken into the news only because an unnamed source had a conscience?

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.

Excuse me? Saddam wasn't cooperating? What the hell is that crap? Find me one instance of him not coopertation with the inspectors in the 3 months prior to invasion.

Sorry Tico. You don't get to make up facts.

parados wrote:

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.

Excuse me? Saddam wasn't cooperating? What the hell is that crap? Find me one instance of him not coopertation with the inspectors in the 3 months prior to invasion.

Sorry Tico. You don't get to make up facts.

And Saddam didn't get to fake cooperation in the last months before the invasion in another attempt to delay his requirement to prove compliance. That's the game he played; his bluff was called.

parados wrote:

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.

Excuse me? Saddam wasn't cooperating? What the hell is that crap? Find me one instance of him not coopertation with the inspectors in the 3 months prior to invasion.

Sorry Tico. You don't get to make up facts.

And Saddam didn't get to fake cooperation in the last months before the invasion in another attempt to delay his requirement to prove compliance. That's the game he played; his bluff was called.

Ticomaya wrote:

And Saddam didn't get to fake cooperation in the last months before the invasion in another attempt to delay his requirement to prove compliance. That's the game he played; his bluff was called.

Do you have proof of this?

squinney wrote:

Don't go there on the who's more moral crap. I'll have to post a gazillion links of proof that this was a total fabrication in order to win religious right votes.

Proof?

Is that your opinion Tico, or is there proof someplace that the rest of us missed?

You claimed that Bill Clinton lied, but you did not indicate what he lied about or what proof you have to back up this claim. I doubt that this will go anywhere but except in circles with he said she said testimonials.

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:

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.

Excuse me? Saddam wasn't cooperating? What the hell is that crap? Find me one instance of him not coopertation with the inspectors in the 3 months prior to invasion.

Sorry Tico. You don't get to make up facts.

And Saddam didn't get to fake cooperation in the last months before the invasion in another attempt to delay his requirement to prove compliance. That's the game he played; his bluff was called.

Cooperation was fake? oh, I see. There was no cooperation because you just get to make up facts when it suits you. Yep, no evidence. You just get to characterize what actually happened with some outrageous claim and then demand that we accept it as truth.

At this point it appears that you are the only one repeatedly demanding proof.

Or are you just being pedantic?

Let us just say that I was prompted to ask for proof because I have seen that in so many of your posts. I thought it was a 2 way street.

It is possible that I many have been a bit insensate, but I suppose that depends on whether you meant in the context of foolish or unfeeling. I would prefer the latter, if given a choice.

Sorry, but I do not consider myself pedantic.

parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:

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.

Excuse me? Saddam wasn't cooperating? What the hell is that crap? Find me one instance of him not coopertation with the inspectors in the 3 months prior to invasion.

Sorry Tico. You don't get to make up facts.

And Saddam didn't get to fake cooperation in the last months before the invasion in another attempt to delay his requirement to prove compliance. That's the game he played; his bluff was called.

Cooperation was fake? oh, I see. There was no cooperation because you just get to make up facts when it suits you. Yep, no evidence. You just get to characterize what actually happened with some outrageous claim and then demand that we accept it as truth.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/official_docs/dos/dos013003.pdf

This situation has just about reached a boiling point, and the entire world is watching. Rightfully so. This is what Monday's report told us: since the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, Iraq's last chance to disarm, Iraq has refused to hand over or destroy its chemical and biological weapons; Iraq has refused to identify the location and fate of its considerable stocks of anthrax, botulinum toxin, VX, sarin, and mustard gas; Iraq has refused to surrender its mobile biological capabilities, which are essentially germ laboratories tucked into the back of a Mack truck; and Iraq has refused to account for tens of thousands of empty -- and full -- chemical and biological warheads. And, mind you, these are just the materials and the weapons we know about, just some of what UNSCOM catalogued in 1999 after inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. We do not know what Saddam Hussein may have amassed in the years since.

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:

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.

Excuse me? Saddam wasn't cooperating? What the hell is that crap? Find me one instance of him not coopertation with the inspectors in the 3 months prior to invasion.

Sorry Tico. You don't get to make up facts.

And Saddam didn't get to fake cooperation in the last months before the invasion in another attempt to delay his requirement to prove compliance. That's the game he played; his bluff was called.

Cooperation was fake? oh, I see. There was no cooperation because you just get to make up facts when it suits you. Yep, no evidence. You just get to characterize what actually happened with some outrageous claim and then demand that we accept it as truth.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/official_docs/dos/dos013003.pdf

Yeah, and? where are those WMD that were claimed?
The document presented had lots of nice rhetoric about Saddam had to truthfully declare his WMD or be invaded. Saddam claimed he had none. It appears that Saddam fulfilled his requirements.

Which part of his not cooperating are you claiming? I don't see any evidence yet that he didn't do so.

Iraq has refused to identify the location and fate of its considerable stocks of anthrax, botulinum toxin, VX, sarin, and mustard gas;
....

and Iraq has refused to account for tens of thousands of empty -- and full -- chemical and biological warheads. And, mind you, these are just the materials and the weapons we know about, just some of what UNSCOM catalogued in 1999 after inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. We do not know what Saddam Hussein may have amassed in the years since.

"Credible or Not"
Two questions for Newsweek.
by William Kristol
05/17/2005 5:00:00 PM


(1) In its May 9 "Periscope" item, Newsweek claimed that "sources tell Newsweek" that "interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qu'ran down a toilet. . . ." In its May 23 "The Editor's Desk" note, editor Mark Whitaker explains that Michael Isikoff's and John Barry's "information came from a knowledgeable U.S. government source. . . ." If there was only one source for the "information," why did Newsweek originally claim there was more than one source?

(2) In the May 23 issue, Evan Thomas provides an account of the original story, the rioting that followed, and some of Newsweek's subsequent exchanges with the Defense Department. Here is the penultimate paragraph of Thomas' article:

More allegations, credible or not, are sure to come. Bader Zaman Bader, a 35-year-old former editor of a fundamentalist English-language magazine in Peshawar, was released from more than two years' lockup in Guantanamo seven months ago. Arrested by Pakistani security as a suspected Qaeda militant in November 2001, he was handed over to the U.S. military and held at a tent at the Kandahar airfield. One day, Bader claims, as the inmates' latrines were being emptied, a U.S. soldier threw in a Qu'ran. After the inmates screamed and protested, a U.S. commander apologized. Bader says he still has nightmare about the incident.

No one is quoted in this account. It is not clear if a Newsweek correspondent spoke directly to Bader. There is no evidence that Newsweek even tried to check this story with military authorities or others
conversant with what happened at the Kandahar airfield. Is this alleged incident, significant enough to have allegedly caused an apology by the U.S. commander, attested to by anyone else? Did Newsweek make any effort to corroborate Bader's account?

Moreover: might it have been appropriate for Newsweek to inform its readers, as "the indigent blogger" at Vagabondia was quickly able to discover and inform his readers, that: (a) Bader is now demanding compensation from the U.S. government for his imprisonment; and (b) Bader was interviewed by the Associated Press and by China's Xinhua news agency in Afghanistan shortly after his release last year. In those interviews, he seems to have said nothing about such an incident, and indeed told AP that he was interrogated "150 times" by the Americans but never abused. Only now does Bader recall this incident and its resulting nightmares.

Is Bader's claim credible? Did Newsweek even attempt to check it out before publishing it? Or does Newsweek believe that inserting the phrase, "credible or not," at the beginning of the relevant paragraph, absolves them of this journalistic duty?

William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard.