The Newsweek/U.S. Government Koran Incident

Ok, so Newsweek printed a story that said soldiers in Guantanamo (sp?) tortored prisoners by ripping out pages of the Koran, and even flushed one down the toilet.

Then, riots happened overseas in countries like Afghanistan, in reaction to the article, and some fifteen people are dead.

Now, Newsweek claims it can no longer vouch for the credibility of the story (they haven't officially retracted), and the White House seems pissed.

Personally, I wonder if Bush and Crew got to the government insider who leaked this story to Newsweek, and then got him to flip so that the newsweek journalists would have to retract. Eh?

 

Senate Forum please.

 

All signs point to LOCK.

 

Personally, I wonder if Bush and Crew got to the government insider who leaked this story to Newsweek, and then got him to flip so that the newsweek journalists would have to retract. Eh?

Actually, even as the reports came out, officials were saying that there was nothing to it, and that the closest thing was a report about an inmate flushing pages of the Koran down a toilet (trying to clog it).

No need for conspiracies here, at least not when good old-fashioned "telephone" can explain it.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Maybe, maybe not.

Here is Austin Bay's view on this matter.

The folks at Newsweek had to know that this report could cause problems - and they should have held off and make sure that they had it right. Doubly so, since it is also known that al-Qaeda's manuals suggest phony allegations be used against the United States.

Short version, Newsweek was grossly irresponsible.

 

Newsweek was grossly irresponsible



Why does anyone even bother with that trash anymore?

Time, Newsweek, USA Today...it's all garbage.
(Oh wait, USA TODAY gave ROTS a great review.....I retract!)

 

Why does anyone even bother with that trash anymore?

Fareed Zakaria's columns are usually good, but I just read them online.

 

Just yet another one of the liberal elite news media that is so intent on harming our president that they don't really care if the story is true or not.

 

I agree, Fareed Zakaria's articles are very well balanced, IMO.

ShaneP:

Time gave a good review for ROTS, too. But then again, they gave AOTC a good review as well...

 

AOTC Rocks!!!!

No trolling for J-Rods!

 

I like Zakaria. His last book I read was good.

Okay, so...Zakaria-less Newsweek is garbage.

 

The ironic thing, IMHO, is that a magazine has an 'intelligence failure' regarding a story, and the White House expresses a desire for retraction and truth.



And yet, they do not offer the same thing regarding the 'intelligence failure' regarding WMD in Iraq.

Hmmm...

 

And yet, they do not offer the same thing regarding the 'intelligence failure' regarding WMD in Iraq.

Weak. We checked our sources. It was the same as the sources for the rest of the world, as well as the previous administration.

 

Quixotic Sith
And yet, they do not offer the same thing regarding the 'intelligence failure' regarding WMD in Iraq.

Oh,that's a whole other barge-full of worms.

J-Rod
We checked our sources. It was the same as the sources for the rest of the world, as well as the previous administration.

That is no excuse. If we are the "greatest nation", we shouldn't tie ourselves to the intelligence agencies of other ones.

 

I'm telling you, the report was true and the White House plugged the leak but good, now they are in damage control. People died in Afghanistan, the magazine saw what happened to Dan Rather.

They probably had two sources. One of them was a high ranking government official. The official originally gave the information, but has since retracted. That's why Newsweek ran the story, they thought it was true.

But then the riots happened, and the official from the White House changed their tune. With a key source changing their tune, there is really nothing Newsweek can do but get egg on their face.

Why else would newsweek publish such a story, in light of Rathergate? Because they source they thought they had changed his story midstream becasue the Bush Administration got to him or her.

 

The truth isn't weak J-Rod. Even the administration had reason to doubt the veracity of the information they had received, but went ahead with it because they believed it to be true. Why should Newsweek be held to a harsher standard?

 

I'm telling you, the report was true and the White House plugged the leak but good, now they are in damage control.

PPOR

The truth isn't weak J-Rod. Even the administration had reason to doubt the veracity of the information they had received, but went ahead with it because they believed it to be true. Why should Newsweek be held to a harsher standard?

I assure you that 13 years and 17 broken resolutions was wayyyyyyyy more than Newsweek did.

 

Problem is, J-Rod, that

13 years + 17 broken resolutions = 0 WMDs.

When your claim for the war is WMDs (and remember, *before* all this started, is *was* only about the WMDs), this is a big problem.

When it surfaces later that there were internal reasons for doubting the veracity of the intelligence, the problem becomes bigger.

To then critique someone for acting on bad intelligence and claiming moral high ground, one leaps from big problem to big hypocrisy.

There is no way around this if you want to stay intellectually honest.

 

When your claim for the war is WMDs (and remember, *before* all this started, is *was* only about the WMDs), this is a big problem.

It was NOT! I won't derail this thread with something that has no bearing on how the news does it's job, but I've given links to all the speaches before the war.

Go look them up.

 

I'm happy to visit them if you PM me the links, so that you won't have to derail the thread. My memory is of Colin Powell appearing before the UN attempting to persuade them with threats of yellowcake and Condi Rice speaking about the possibility of aluminum tubes being used for nuclear weapons (despite her own intelligence telling her this was impossible), and saying that we couldn't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud. If you are aware of other justifications before the war, I will happily look them over. Just nothing obviously biased, please (e.g., Drudge Report stuff).

 

My memory is of Colin Powell appearing before the UN attempting to persuade them with threats of yellowcake and Condi Rice speaking about the possibility of aluminum tubes being used for nuclear weapons (despite her own intelligence telling her this was impossible), and saying that we couldn't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud.

Those were meetings called spicifcaly to address those situations. So yes, that is all that was talked about there.

As far as the llinks go, they were offical White House records of the speeches. I'll see if I can find them again.

 

Obi-Wan

Why else would newsweek publish such a story, in light of Rathergate?

Oh, I don't know...maybe because...they're IDIOTS!?

 

WellOWM, I guess this will end your speculation

 

Too much damage has already been done.

And by the way, this story fits just too nicely into the image too many people (outside the US of course) already have.

What disturbs me slightly is the following quotation from the linked article from above :

"But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst."

Okay, they apologise for the victims of the violence, but there is no excuse to any members of the islamic religion at all - they have been feeling insulted, not any "victims of violense" or "U.S. soldiers caught in the midst".

I think there is also an apology for the mistake into the islamic direction necessary, because the indirect insult was directed to them, not to anyone else.

But on the other hand ... would they believe them, after all the things that have happened this far ?

 

In my opinion, Newsweek is mostly in the right in this instance. A "reliable" informant gives you information that agrees with other publicly available information, so you publish it.

My only jive is the people who are trying to start (another) war over the alleged "desecration" of a holy book.

I would just hate to be the person who wrote the article. What would it be like to have the blood of at least sixteen people on your hands, just because you wrote a column?