Newsweek pretty clearly dropped the ball, but I would hesitate to blame them for the riots in Afghanistan and elsewhere. A couple notes:
First, the rioters themselves should share some blame for their behavior, as well as the rest of the bug-eyed Arab culture that continues to wallow in this cesspool of hate. And don’t tell me I just don’t understand Arab culture- I am sick and tired of the apologists for these radicals. Go read Juan Cole if you want excuses.
Second, I have never really thought of Michael Isikoff as a particularly big Bush-basher, and I generally like his stuff. In fact, I really don’t remember him ever attacking Bush very effectively or viciously, but I do remember him savaging Sidney Blumenthal. Oh, and you folks have heard of Paula Jones, haven’t you.
Third, I am a little reluctant to attribute a failure at Newsweek as a sign of a pandemic of shoddy journalism elsewhere. I expect a lot out of the media, and cable news is for the most part abominable, but I would be lost without the good folks who do a lot of good reporting in print media.
This was a mistake. Probably might be time to change the standards for using anonymous sources. But I don’t want to draw any larger conclusions than just that.
BTW- I find it difficult to believe that even the bizarre Arab culture would be moved to riot over the Koran in a toilet and not, say, the numerous abuses at Abu Ghraib. That is just a tough sell for me, and I would recommend some people look up post hoc ergo propter hoc.
At any rate, the jury is still out for me on this one. I want to see what was going on, whetehgr this really was a mistake, and so on…
Rick
The mistake was the “herd-of-independent-minds” error of mediacrats in believing that an apparently single, anonymously sourced report of a single, otherwise unverified incident such as described, merited a mention at all.
If the detail checked out via the media’s much-puffed multi-layered fact-checking apparatus, and THEN THEY FOUND IT WAS AN ACT OF ADMIN/MILITARY/HALLIBURTON POLICY, then you’ve got a story.
Otherwise, a goon guard merely offends a radical religious rightwinger. Yeah, so?
Cordially…
Fargus
If it’s wrong, they dropped the ball. But isn’t it still under investigation?
Nash
Kudos, John, for withholding most of your judgment here.
See comment #1 for the inartful, but entirely predictable, use of the subjunctive “were it to happen” excuse.
Like you, I’m waiting to hear more.
Andrei
“The mistake was the ‘herd-of-independent-minds’ error of mediacrats in believing that an apparently single, anonymously sourced report of a single, otherwise unverified incident such as described, merited a mention at all.”
Newsweek editors sent the story to their Pentagon contacts for verification of the facts. They got the facts from a trusted Pentagon “official” (a different person inside I understand) who had given them accurate, reliable information in the past, so they had no reason to suspect their source was faulty in this case. While many other details in the story Newsweek sent for fact-checking were flagged by the Pentagon — ones Newsweek changed and modified based on feedback — the Koran item was not, so the editors at Newsweek assumed everything in the story not flagged by their contacts inside the Pentagon were accurate. This is the story as stated on NPR this morning by the Newsweek editor involved.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4653779
Outside of this, if people in the blogosphere get worked up over this incident, but not over a more eggregious error and fact checking as executed by the Bush administration in selling the American public on going to war — which has resulted in more American soldiers and Iraqis killed than these recent riots — then we truly are living in some seriously screwed up times.
Steven
The Right Wing Noise Machine has to find a scapegoat for the riots because it can’t possibly be the case that things aren’t going as swimmingly in Afghanistan as they want us to believe.
Rick
Yadda-yadda-yadda. The old, bedraggled talking points come out for another lap around the blogosphere pitch.
No critic has addressed why a single, *alleged* instance of improper/disrespectul treatment of a Koran rates a mention in a national newsmagazine.
Well, I think I know, but to tell it would be “inartful.”
Andrei, it’s the media mentality which is so often screwed up. And not just at FoxNews. Eeek!
Cordially…
mat
Shoddy journalism? It’s not like this story hasn’t been making the rounds; it has.
In fact, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported this same story in January.
So it is not like Newsweek was revealing anything new or shocking.
Dave Ruddell
If I may be gently pendantic, John, this violence can’t be blamed solely on Arab culture, since, Afghans are not Arabs. I only point this out so that someone won’t jump up and say “See! He thinks all Muslims are Arabs! Clearly he has no idea what he’s talking about!”
BTW, I don’t think this is a matter of Muslim culture either. I think it’s a matter of primative culture.
Halffasthero
For my own part, I noted that Newsweek did not retract the story. There source stated it might have been read somewhere else. So it could be exactly right. Perhaps all the flags were not there that should have been to fact-check before releasing. In any case, trying to burn down Newsweek over something that was just one screw-up in a terribly run campaign of screw-ups in the Muslim world smacks of total hypocrisy.
John Cole
Dave- Hence, the elsewhere. in the statement “would hesitate to blame them for the riots in Afghanistan and elsewhere.”
I am not a completely ignorant stooge- I just play one on the internet.
Andrei
“Andrei, it’s the media mentality which is so often screwed up. And not just at FoxNews. Eeek!”
I have no idea what that has to do with anything with regard to what I posted.
And as mat pointed out, which was also pointd out by the Newsweek editor on NPR this morning, this single item about the Koran had been in print before the Newsweek article. And the Newsweek article wasn’t focusing on this item, it wasfocusing on other things. It was one piece of a much larger story.
At least Newsweek has apologized for the error. What has the Bush administration done over the utter incompetence of fact checking and errors in intelligence that has led to an extremely expensive war costing thousands upon thousands of lives that quite frankly doesn’t seem to be doing anything?…
Stormy70
I have no sympathy for Newsweek, and I don’t trust their “anonynous source” either. They screwed up by not properly vetting their story, and now our foreign policy has taken a tremendous hit. The radicals have been handed a propaganda victory, and people are being killed. Last I checked, a journalist is supposed to thoroughly investigate a story like this, not run it, and then blame the Pentagon for not disputing it. My “Senior Administrative Source” just told me this whole story is Anti-American News Media Bullshit, and Isikoff is a fucking liar. He didn’t deny it, so it must be true, according to Newsweek’s standards.
Randolph Fritz
Think what our own “christian” radicals would do if it was christians being tortured and a bible desecrated in Afghanistan! It’s not like the Islamic radicals want more, or anything much different, than our own christian radicals.
By the way, your identification of Afghanis as “Arabs” is a huge error; perhaps as large as calling someone from Alabama a “Yank.”
Rick
Well, speaking for Bushchimphitlerburton, I apologize for the free elections in Iraq, the apparent pliability of Opthamologist Assad in Syria–or rather *out*Lebanon–the nascent elections in Saudi-land, the breakthrough womens sufferage in Kuwait, and the mellowing of Col. Khaddafi.
Bushchimphitlerburton, Cheney & Rummy had as little to do with those developments as Clinton & Rubin did with 1990s economic performance.
Now, I must have missed it: is there news value in a stand-alone book flushing incident?
Cordially…
Rick
Mr. Fritz,
Yeah, those Fundie Christian riots are among our greatest pestilences. Or Crosses to Bear.
Aren’t they?
We seem to have had some nominal Christians (infidels) tortured in Iraq by Zarqawi. How many U.S. mosques have gotten the Kristalnacht treatment as a result?
Cordially…
Andrei
“They screwed up by not properly vetting their story…”
They claim they did. And if they did, and it was vetted by Pentagon officials — who sent them corrections which they fixed before running the story — would you still understand? From the tone of your message, it sounds like Newsweek can do nothing in your eyes to fix the problem, so why should they bother with what you think?
Further, laying the lives of the people on Newsweek and Isikoff for one error while Bush has much more blood on his hands for far more eggregious factual errors just seems utterly pathetic.
This Newsweek piece is not the primary story. It’s a side distraction, once again, from the real crap going on in our world and what our current administration is doing in our names, both at homeand abroad.
Rick
This Newsweek piece is not the primary story. It’s a side distraction…
That’s close to my point/complaint. There was no story there in the first place, unless it was connected to some policy directive.
Ignore, ignore.
Cordially…
Andrei
“Yeah, those Fundie Christian riots are among our greatest pestilences. Or Crosses to Bear.”
Wow… did you have buried in the sand during the Schiavo debacle?
And that was just over one woman who was clearly long gone and should have been allowed to be let go. Are we to believe christian fundamenalists would react lesser than they have so far if Muslims were accused of trashing the Bible with prisoners of war?
From everything we’ve seen so far in this country, that kind of incident might even be considered a call to world war three for some of our right wing fundamenlists. Unless of course they’ve been displaying mock outrage over lesser offenses up to this point.
Stormy70
The riots in Afghanistan are attributed to this Newsweek story, and, no, it was not properly vetted. Otherwise, Newsweek would not be issuing apologies, and trying to pick up the pieces of their credibility.
Oh, and when Palestian Terrorists holed up in the Church of the Nativity , and used pages of the Bible to wipe their ass, hordes of Christians did not take to the streets and kill anyone. Those Terrorists got exported to Christian countries so the IDF wouldn’t fry their fucking ass.
Stormy70
Newsweek just retracted the article, according to LGF. Newsweek flushed their own credibility down the toilet. Isikoff and company are hacks, and I wonder how many other stories they’ve lied about.
Steven
Rick~
“Now, I must have missed it: is there news value in a stand-alone book flushing incident?”
A couple comments:
1. It’s not a stand alone incident, but part of a wider discussion into the appropriateness of interrogation techniques (torture).
2. The Koran defacement incidents had been reported before, but never attributed to a government official. That was the news value in the Newsweek story and why they are now hung out to dry.
3. Why is the radical right wing attacking this story so hard? I am just cynical to believe that when a story is attacked this hard that one of three things must be true:
1. The story is true, but they really don’t like it.
2. The story isn’t true and they are trying to discredit the publication/reporter for the future; or
3. There is a real story that isn’t being repored that they don’t want anyone to look at very hard.
In this instance, I vote for “3”. Things aren’t going so well over there, and they’d just prefer that no one pays attention.
Rick
Wow… did you have buried in the sand during the Schiavo debacle?
Wow…you have a gift for overstatement if you thought there was anything riotous going on then? But perhaps my recall need refreshing: how mosques were burnt in these Christian rampages?
Hey, whatever happened to “dissent is the highest form of patriotism?”
Cordially…
Andrei
“Oh, and when Palestian Terrorists holed up in the Church of the Nativity , and used pages of the Bible to wipe their ass, hordes of Christians did not take to the streets and kill anyone.”
While reports of unsanitary conditions existed, there were no reports of this kind of behavior that I’m aware of.
http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000032-print.html
Unless you have accounts otherwise, to make that sort of claim, that they “used the Bible to wipe their ass” is just wrong. They were terrorists, yes. Their behavior is unacceptable yes. But to pass along escalated false information in the manner you might be doing Stormy makes you just as vile.
And as I remember the incident, it was very tense for a few weeks. One false move on either side could have been disastrous. Like a smaller version of the Cuban missle crisis.
IOW, it wasn’t all peaches and cream on the christian or jewish side of the fence during that time. And we were all distracted by Afghanistan and leading into what we were going to do about further retaliation for 9/11.
Stormy70
Maybe we are pissed off because people are dead because of a lie. You know, dead people in riots because one dumbass reporter was so excited about his Abu Garib award that he wanted to break another anti-American bash Bush piece. It’s hard enough dealing with crazy-ass Muslim-extremists, without the news media stirring the pot. Americans are now in more danger overseas now because Newsweek LIED!
Rick
Well, Steve. The chicken came home to roost, if the reported retraction is true.
A minor (alleged) vent unworthy of reportage nonetheless appears in a national magazine, and justified as part of “wider discurssion.”
How about a wider discussion of NEWS VALUE vs. possible repercussions? Even *if* a Koran got an unuthorized swirlie, there’s no inherent news value in it. Except to the radical left wing, if I may adopt a formulation of yours. Everything is Vietnam! Tonkin Gulf! Brutal Afghan Winter! Why Do They Hate Us?! Abu Ghraib!
There’s a bigger world out there.
Cordially…
Jon H
“In this instance, I vote for “3”. Things aren’t going so well over there, and they’d just prefer that no one pays attention”
Well, it does a good job of distracting attention from our ally, Uzbekistan, slaughtering its civilians.
Freedom is on the march!
Andrei
“Maybe we are pissed off because people are dead because of a lie.”
OMFG.
Rick… these guys are on your side. I hope you sleep well at night.
So Stormy… I assume you’re with me when I make the call to have Bush impeached, right?
Stormy70
Washington Times, April 2002 for the desecration of the Church of the Nativity. Look it up on Google.
Andrei – I thought we were discussing the false Newsweek story, not pre-election bullshit hashed over one million times by you guys on the left.
Rick – I sleep like a baby, how about you?
Rick
Andrei,
I sleep peacefully, with a clear conscience in beatific repose. BTW, I really am having trouble figuring out what your OMFG reaction is all about, connected as it seems to be w/ the fatal riots. What should trouble my dreams?
And I found an “artful” reason for what made the Koranic Swirlie such a big story.
From the John Cole recommended Protein Wisdom:
A riddle for a Monday Morning
Q: Why did Newsweek
Al Maviva
Rick
Andrei, Fritz, no offense meant, but you
Lee
randolph fritz–I am seriously stunned at your ignorance/hatred/intolerance. aren’t those liberal chestthumping points?
seriously, you are nuts; to quote “Think what our own “christian” radicals would do if it was christians being tortured and a bible desecrated in Afghanistan! It’s not like the Islamic radicals want more, or anything much different, than our own christian radicals.” I am stunned. So ‘christians’ protest shiavo, or preach at the AFA and you think contemporary Christians are capable of this wide scale murder, ect…)? You need more Dr.Phil and less al jazeera.
Randolph Fritz
“You must not read much other than blog comments over at Kos. Christians get tortured and executed in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, parts of Nigeria, and China, on a very regular basis. […]”
Yes, and we are making war on the Islamic world–just ask W. Bush, he told us it was a “crusade.” The damn fool actually used the word, knowing it was pouring gasoline on a fire.
You ignorant pup, I’ve been opposed to Islamic radicalism for decades. I am opposed to all religious radicalism that involves attacks on so-called “unbelievers.”
For the rest, there’s an excellent analysis of the attacks on Newsweek as propaganda over at libertarian Arthur Silber’s Light of Reason. Recommended.
Rick
Yes, and we are making war on the Islamic world–just ask W. Bush, he told us it was a “crusade.”
Randolph,
We picked up our cudgel in this war “on” Islam by pelting Afghanis with food packages.
It’s freaking Dresden redux!
The attack on Newsweek, for my part, is on sloppy reporting practice, and just plain really weird judgement.
I’ll bet some Gitmo guards, when faced with prisoner complaints about some meals, have told the Talibanis to go f*ck themselves. More torture, I must assume.
Cordially…
Andrei
“BTW, I really am having trouble figuring out what your OMFG reaction is all about, connected as it seems to be w/ the fatal riots. What should trouble my dreams?”
That Stormy was commenting on a Newsweek story that wasn’t a lie, but a mistake in reporting that has been associated with sparking riots that have resulted in 12 deaths, while our own administration has been caught in a larger mistakes of fact checking, intelligence and reporting that have resulted in 1600 American soldiers dead and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead as well, while costing us billions of dollars that we are debting to our children. And the war is not yet over. The end game is not in sight.
You sleep at night, that’s your pergotive. I’m most certainly glad not to be you.
Andrei
“Well, I guess you wouldn
Andrei
Found the article finally Stormy was referring to:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/119/51.0.html
There’s a link to a text version of the Times article, which I can’t seem to find via the Times own search feature.
So on that point I stand corrected.
timekeeper
Andrei: I’ll start taking reports of increased hate crimes against Muslims a bit more seriously when they start releasing serious reports. The latest screed from CAIR includes such gems as a civil rights violation of Cat Stevens (who was not allowed into the US because of his support of terrorist-affiliated groups.
And Newsweek’s irresponsible reporting has already done its work; Islamic groups are ignoring the full retraction, and three Afghan clerics have announced a holy war on the US if we don’t turn over the responsible individuals. Do you think they are going to take “it didn’t happen” as an acceptable response?
“Holy War” has a very specific connotation, and I hate to point it out to you, but the only practitioners of the art are non-Christians. Holy war went out of fashion in the christian world after the crusades. Of course, Islam postdates Christianity by about 600 years, so yeah, they’re acting like the Christians did in the 1400’s.
KevinA
DAMN YOU COLE!!!! Actually wiyhholding judgement. What an utterly rational idea. ;)
Newsweek has fully retracted the story now. Too bad for Isikoff.
Thing to remember is that this is far from the first allegation here. Now such allegations vary WILDLY im their credibility, but still.
Andrei
“Do you think they are going to take ‘it didn’t happen’ as an acceptable response?”
That presumes it (the specific Koran incident and the other reports of torture) didn’t happen.
So many conflicting reports going on these days about torture and the extent of it that I don’t think anyone truly knows yet just how bad it is or not. I think its a bit early though to think this kind of incident didn’t happen at all or couldn’t happen given what we know of other incidents of torture.
“‘Holy War’ has a very specific connotation, and I hate to point it out to you, but the only practitioners of the art are non-Christians.”
I don’t see that as a point that has any signifigance in this part of the discussion. War is war, whether it is “holy” or “to fight terrorism” people die in them. We have engaged in war, and there are some threatening to fight back or just outright fight us. That’s what war is. People will die, someone will win, and history will adjust to reflect the winner.
Randolph Fritz
Rick, the Bush administration lost Usama bin Laden in Afganistan; I am so not impressed.
“As a professional historian, I would say we still do not have enough to be sure that the Koran desecration incident took place. We have enough to consider it plausible.”
“The controversy, however, seems to me to have focused on all the wrong things. The question is why all those prisoners are still being held at Guantanamo.”
“A reader with military experience in this area wrote me his own experience, with the Bible being trashed in a similar way.”
–Juan Cole. Read the whole article.
Nash
False equivalences being pointed out stings like an inartful bitch, don’t it?
Libertine
I got to laugh, LOL!!!
Newsweek did a story using a Pentagon source, who had always been very reliable in the past. The story comes out and riots break out in the Middle East. The Administration calls Newsweek on it, saying their atricle was the cause of the riots and deaths. Newsweek retracts the story and issues an apology.
Mistakes were made by Newsweek and they admit it. But they got hung out to dry by their Pentagon source who changed his/her mind post facto. This is incident bears no comparison to the CBS Bush National Guard story. Unlike Newsweek CBS used a source that had questionable credibility. And I don’t want to hear about any “left-wing media conspiracy” or I will invoke Bill O’Reilly’s falafel of love. I just have one question when does Armstrong Williams make his Faux News propoganda appearance defending the administration?
And btw…back in the 90’s was anybody here complaining that the MSM did all those stories on that failed land deal in Arkansas…which cost taxpayers over $60,000,000 and naturally lead to an impeachment of a President for liking oral sex? Yeah left-wing media conspiracy my ass!!!
Remember all of you in the MSM, if you do stories that are critical of or don’t support the administration you are not independant you are part of a sinister plot to undermine the government…give me a break.
Nash
Olbermann calls for Scott McClellan’s resignation over the Newsweek imbroglio.
lee
Olberman? is he still on espn? and Fritz, you’re quoting Juan Cole? Please tell me you meant ‘John cole’… Juan makes Howard Dean look sane.
sojourner
I think the more interesting question is why were Muslims so quick to believe the story (which, by the way, has yet to be categorically denied by the Pentagon). Those who claim the story has damaged the U.S. government’s reputation have it backward. The government has already f*cked its own reputation through repeated mistreatment of Muslim detainees including rape and murder. Muslims are quite familiar with this government’s hostility towards Muslims so this story was just the final straw.
It’s will be likely be decades before the U.S. regains its moral bearings.
TJ Jackson
Presidents get impeached for this sort of nonsense. Newsweek just had to demonstrate why the MSM is increasingly irrelevant to the world. Evans should be taken out and beaten to death with aq printer’s tray.
Lee
Under logic that the US reputation throughout the world is f**ked through ‘mistreatment’ of muslim prisoners (which is bullsh*t anyway). Is it a lost cause for the US to continue all the good it does throughout the world? Is all of our good even recognized? Should we draw in our boarders, reclaim our isolationist ways and let the world be damned–all the while people cry for our help? We (the US) can’t win, can we? I believe more in bush’s policy of pre-emption than clinton’s attack-react (with missles to aspirin factory no less)).
sojourner
How about we don’t start a war on the basis of government lies? And don’t give me that crap about how they didn’t lie. The British internal memos clearly document (once again) the Bushies intention to start a war, facts be damned.
How about we don’t torture people and detain them against their will without hearings, charges, and that other stuff we brag to the world about holding dear.
How about we work with the rest of the world, rather than sticking a thumb in their eyes? And then expect them to bail us out when the war doesn’t work out as promised.
How about we quit mocking the UN over the oil-for-food scandal while looking the other way over missing billions of dollars that ended up in the pockets of Halliburton and others?
Why don’t we practice what we preach? It’s pretty interesting watching Putin mocking Bush’s claims about democracy. I certainly cringed.
wild bird
From the press of NEWSREEK come the lie of lies and this is more then one reason why we should boycott these liberal left-wing rags they are pushers of left-wing propeganda
Randolph Fritz
“They should understand the sentiments of Muslims and think 101 times before publishing news which hurt feelings of Muslims.”–Pakistani Minister of Information, Reuters.
Let’s hear it for freedom of the press.
“Maybe the administration should think 101 times before deliberately carrying out policies that are intended to insult Muslims, instead. Just a suggestion.”–Avedon Carol
Nash
Boycott away. But it sounds like this is one of them there pretendin boycotts–you gotta be buyin Newsweek before you can boycott it, wild bird. Just sayin.
Here’s some boycott help for you and the “inartful one”, supplied for free, out of the kindness of my heart:
“The Washington Post Company’s principal business activities consist of newspaper publishing (principally The Washington Post), television broadcasting (through the ownership and operation of six television broadcast stations), the ownership and operation of cable television systems, magazine publishing (principally Newsweek magazine), and (through its Kaplan subsidiary) the provision of educational services.” [http://www.answers.com/topic/the-washington-post]
So here’s the wild bird boycott checklist:
WaPo: check, already boycotted, natch
Newsweek: note to self, subscribe so I can drop the subscription. Askl for help on the nasty note.
Broadcast and cable TV: wild birds don’t do TV.
Kaplan: lifetime boycott already in effect
My own addition to the WaPo Inc. wild bird boycott list:
Slate: Everyone knows Shaffer’s a commi pinko anyway.
[reset satire filter here]
Kimmitt
It is something else to watch the White House talk about our image abroad.
Sojourner
How funny that some of you are so concerned about Newsweek’s mistakes but indifferent to the lies and failures of this administration that has cost thousands of American lies.
They were caught with their pants down on 9/11 and they lied their way into a war.
But don’t look there. Look over here – blame the media!
Suckers!
Sojourner
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7873141/#050516b
Imagine that. The Bush administration just cannot tell the truth.
But boy are they good at blaming everybody else.
A truly moral administration.
Libertine
Sojourner is right…
Our reputation is in the craper not because of this story but because of what this administration has said and done justifying the Iraq War. First it was WoMD claims buttressed by bogus allegations that Saddam tried to by Uranium from Niger. Then it was because Saddam had terrorist ties and was involved in 9/11…both debunked by the bi-partisan 9/11 commission. Finally we settled on that Saddam was killing his own people and might be a future threat to his neighbors and world. Continually changing our story is the root of our credibility problems in the region.
I happen to believe the allegations of desecration of the Koran might be true. The Newsweek story was showed to Pentagon officials before it ran for accuracy. Although there were parts of the story that the Pentagon felt were inaccurate, nobody at the Pentagon said that the Koran allegations should be removed. The story breaks and all hell breaks loose in the Middle-east and the Administration knows they have a problem…then the source recants his/her story…and Newsweek is set-up and hung out to dry on this.
M. Scott Eiland
Olbermann calls for Scott McClellan’s resignation over the Newsweek imbroglio.
The sad thing is that I can’t tell whether you’re kidding or not–Olbermann is an embarrassment to protoplasm.
Rick
Olbermann???? BWA-HA-HA-HAA-HAAAAAAAAAA!! Oh dear, and to think this thread purports to shred Limbaugh!
Thanks for bringing laughter to my day.
Cordially…
Rick
I’m most certainly glad not to be you.
Andrei,
I can assure you my relief and gratitude is greater than yours.
Cordially…
Rick
Hmmmm…”Sojourner”…is that a “code word” related to the radical religious left that we hear soooooooo much about? Like that theocrat Jim Wallis?
Cordially…
Sojourner
Rick seems to be strangely silent on which parts of Olbermann’s comments are wrong. Interestingly, the Pentagon seems to be pretty darn quiet as well. It’s only the Bush administration that’s out there shifting the blame once again.
Radical religious left? You mean all that stuff in the New Testament about looking after the poor? I guess that is pretty radical, isn’t it? Good thing Bushie’s not a good Christian, huh? That way he can lie to his heart’s content and shit on the poor without contradicting his religious beliefs.
Rick
I see my assumption was correct. Out, cursed Theocract! Out!
Cordially…
P.S. I’m calling for Olbermann’s resignation. Who will join me in my Call To Action?
Libertine
Why should Olbermann resign? Because he dared to question the propagandist orthodoxy that any government spouts? Whether Keith Olbermann or Bill O’Reilly has views contrary to mine it doesn’t mean they should be silenced. Censorship through intimidation and mob rules? I found Ward Churchill’s comments distasteful but it is his Constitutional right to speak them. The last I checked this was America and not Russia. This is still America, right?
Rick
Libertine,
Don’t come crying to me; get thee to Olbermann’s blog and drive home your flag-waving posts.
While there, drop all critical standards and allow yourself to impressed with that matchless cogitator.
Cordially…
Lee
Olberman–failed sportscaster. failed talkshow host (he’s failed more than howard dean). good gosh, why is he being discussed? We should silence him (and ward churchill). Isn’t this how John Kerry would want it (‘silencing foxnews?) I’ve got the torches and pickaxes. who’s with me?
willyb
“It is something else to watch the White House talk about our image abroad.”
Yes, it is quite a spectacle. We had a much better image when the President just “hung” around the Oval Office getting blow jobs from interns and ignored the terror threats that were building around us. Our military actions after 911 have just given people more reasons to hate us. It makes you long for the good ole days when our response to the death of 18 American soldiers in Mogadishu was a more rational, retreat with our tails tucked between our legs (which is where they belong, of course). Or for the more civilized, criminal prosecution of the terrorists that tried to take down the Twin Towers and kill 250,000 Americans (as it turns out, they only actually killed 6 and the damage to the buildings was only $510 million). We should return to the days when we took a more measured approach to dealing with the people out there that hate America. I mean after all, we have certainly provided them with the justifications for their hate. So, yes, give me the good old days when the World loved us for our tolerance of their hatred and we took our outrage to the UN.
Rick
Lee,
Howzabout we give him a pie in the face? I understand that’s a deeply symbolic and sophisticated form of expression.
Anyway, with you and me paying attention, why that pretty much doubles Keith’s audience. Yet still I detect ingratitude here.
Cordially…
Libertine
HAHAHAHA…
OK reframe the issue however you want. But the bottom line is that conservative want to silence people (i.e. Olbermann) who are critical of this administration…that to me is censorship.
Even though it turned into a political witchhunt I never said that Isikoff should have stopped investigating Clinton in the 90’s. Either you are for free speech 100% of the time or you are for censorship.
Sojourner
Still no substantive critique of what Olbermann said. So much easier to come up with irrelevant crap.
Oh yes. The Bush administration did such a great job of protecting us on 9/11. It must have taken a lot of effort to ignore all those warnings. And clearing that brush on the ranch – whoo, now that’s a man’s job. No time to read those boring security briefings. And Dick was too busy plotting how to make money to be bothered holding those pesky terrorist meetings.
I sleep so much better at night knowing that Bush is so much more moral than Clinton. Let Clinton bury himself in all that terrorist nonsense. Let him stop the millenium bombing. It’s so much better to start a war in Iraq instead. Now that’s been really helpful.
Libertine
You forget Sojourner that,despite the facts, 9/11 will always be Clinton’s fault because he spent the 90’s getting oral sex…
ROLLS EYES
Libertine
Does everybody want to talk about credibility on the media’s right?
Armstrong “Bush paid me to shill” Williams
And Rush “all drug users should be executed” Limbaugh.
I don’t know know how credible the right is. But more time is spent by O’Reilly speculating that the runaway bride was actually killed by her husband…then on the real issues facing this country. Was the Koran story right? I don’t know but it is better then listening to coverage of the Michael Jackson trial and wayward brides.
I miss hardball investigative journalism…but the corporate MSM is more about entertaining people in an effort to make the parent company’s a profit then they are interested in journalism.
Brett
It’s becoming difficult to support a war that defends so many Americans not worth defending.
Libertine
Like Americans who feel it is important to protect our Constitution instead of our safety? Or people who question the legitimacy of the war? Or people who hate hearing we should kill all the ragheads? Who is not worth defending, who are you referring too?
Libertine
Who died an left you as “King of America” Brett? Typical right-wing arrogance trying to say who are “real Americans”. I guess if we don’t support the Prez with blind faith we ain’t worth defending? What the hell happened? This isn’t the America I grew up in…I hate to say it but Brett’s attitude strikes me as something right out of Orwell’s 1984. Are you gonna start turning people in to Big Brother Brett?
Andrei
“I hate to say it but Brett’s attitude strikes me as something right out of Orwell’s 1984.”
Check out Bill Moyers account of this phenomon.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/05/17/moyers/index1.html
Here’s the relevant excerpt from the Moyer’s article:
“In Orwell’s ‘1984,’ the character Syme, one of the writers of that totalitarian society’s dictionary, explains to the protagonist Winston, ‘Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?’ ‘Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now? The whole climate of thought,’ he said, ‘will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking — not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.
“An unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only on partisan information and opinions that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda, is less inclined to put up a fight, to ask questions and be skeptical. That kind of orthodoxy can kill a democracy — or worse.”
Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Robert Novak and Sean Hannity. And for the left’s part, people like Randi Rhodes and others on Air America or other parts of the smashmouth wing of talk radio. The junk food of propoganda… yup, that pretty much sums it up.
Andrei
I spell real good… Should of course be “phenomenon.”
Andrei
And “propaganda.” I’m done now. I promise.
Rick
But the bottom line is that conservative want to silence people (i.e. Olbermann) who are critical of this administration…
That’s the bottom line in your world, Libertine. But then, in your world, I’m a “neo-con.”
Actually, folks like Olbermann, the St. Jude of the kooky left, are appreciated, in a circus geek kind of way.
Cordially…
Libertine
Do you believe that the government should be bigger in scope and spending to promote a right wing agenda Rick? If you do I would consider you a neocon…if not then no I wouldn’t.
Libertine
NP Andrei…
I think I have misspelled or made grammatical errors 5 times as much on this thread, lol!!!
Libertine
A question for you Rick. Do you view me a circus show geek for wanting a truly independant press and a government which is accountable to the people of America?
Rick
Do you believe that the government should be bigger in scope and spending to promote a right wing agenda Rick?
Libertine,
Jeebus on a pogo-stick! You mean all my labors here are for naught? Because you sure haven’t done me the kindness of reading my sackcloth & ashes act about how Bushchimphitlerhalliburton and the pubbie Congress spend too much. Including on a left-wing agenda, like pissing more money down NEA, CPB, NEH and Amtrak holes. And “drug benefits.” And corporate welfare. Ethanol subsidies.
Oh! You’ve got me started!
And I’d prefer an openly and avowedly partisan press, rather than the faux–to borrow a favorite word–“objective” “professionals” that try to mislead the public now.
There’s evidence on this blog that they succeed.
Cordially…
Libertine
Rick I was going to pontificate about your last post but I won’t.
This says it all (in a good way)…
how Bushchimphitlerhalliburton and the pubbie Congress spend too much.
But we do disagree about the press. I think a partisan press (conservative and liberal) amounts to a propaganda arm of the government. The government has a responsibility to be accountable to the people and lately it usually has not.
Sojourner
Fascinating. Those of us who refuse to drink the Bushie kool-aid are being misled by the press. That’s rich.
Don’t you guys get tired of defending the lies of this administration? Don’t your muscles ache from the contortions you have to put yourselves into to defend these guys?
Really, reality is so much simpler if you just admit that these guys have lied to you – repeatedly. They lied about 9/11, they lied about the Iraq war, they lied about their tax cuts, they lied about social security, they lied about torture, they lied about their judicial nominees. Lie after lie after lie.
Don’t you just plain get tired of being lied to? Don’t you get tired of being treated like chumps?
Move into the light of reality. It’s really quite refreshing.
Libertine
Sojourner…That is the biggest part of the problem I have with Bush. This administration refused to answer to Congress and the American people what they were doing…especially in the “War on Terrorism”, “Legal Torture” and the “Patriot Act”. When a government refuses to answer to the people who put it there it concerns me greatly.
I will probably raise eyebrows with this but again I state…
It is far more important to protect our Constitution and the rights it gives to us then it is to give the illusion of protecting our safety while infringing on our freedoms.
Sojourner
Libertine, well put. And it’s more important to protect our Constitution than a political party. Sadly, it looks like the Senate is going to ignore that responsibility. This truly is a dark period in our proud country’s history. However, this too shall pass and one day, perhaps in our lifetimes, we will once again have true statesmen and women in office rather than these political hacks who will sell their soul (and our country) for a buck and a vote.
Rick
Mr. Wallace,
I certainly know I’m tired of the media lying to me, as they’ve done for decades. That, and not reporting the news, but partisan or special interest press releases.
Thus my interest in an openly partisan press, rather than turning their lie–that their neutral and objective–into a pretend virtue.
Now, you & Libertine resume your snuggle.
Cordially…
Sojourner
Rick:
Shouldn’t you be more concerned about your government’s lies?
Lee
sojourner/libertine: i hope you’re sincere in your bashing (of) the repubs for their big gov ways. this is good stuff for the memorybanks (and where’s newsweak?). btw, do ya’ll write for ‘the west wing’? with the dems looming obstructionism ahead in the senate (or is it the repubs nuclear option), I think the left is JUST as bad/hypocritical as any conservative in DC.
And lastly: torture. desicrating(sp) the koran, taking pictures of nekked prisoners, putting hoods over their heads IS NOT torture unless you’re trying to bring down a repub president or humiliate the US. Cutting a prisoners head off may be more serious. Mass murdering prisoners might qualify (pick a war, any war). Using them as chemistry experiments might even be considered torture too. please understand the distinction and quit the sweaty handwringing.
Sojourner
The Dems aren’t being obstructionist on the judicial nominations. Rather, they’re compensating for the Repubs’ failure to follow committee rules. Ask Orrin Hatch about Rule IV. Funny how it worked well for him when he was in the minority but his first act as committee chair was to get rid of it. Unilaterally. Ask what happened to the blue slips that the Repubs used with great frequency during the Clinton administration. Can’t let that get in the way of what they want.
So Hatch and his ilk change the rules, then complain bitterly when the Dems fall back on the fillibuster. So now the Repubs want to torpedo the Senate, all in the name of getting total power. The long-term repercussions of this are truly frightening. And please, let’s hear no more about Republican conservatism and fealty to the Constitution. They’ve given new meaning to the term activism. Don’t like what the judges are doing (including ones selected by Republican presidents)? Hand-pick ones who are guaranteed to give the answer you want and f*ck the Constitution and the founding fathers.
Checks and balances? Never heard of it. Minority representation? Huh? And speaking of minority, how ironic is it that these folks who are claiming absolute rights of the majority actually represent a minority. Whoops, who cares if the Repub Senators actually represent 5 million fewer people than the Dems?
Screw that. Absolute power is all that matters. A lovely bunch of people.
Torture? How about imprisoning people without trials, without charges, and with no clear end in sight? Does that work for you?
willyb
“The long-term repercussions of this are truly frightening.”
Perhaps you would to elaboate on these long-term repercussions…
“Hand-pick ones who are guaranteed to give the answer you want and f*ck the Constitution and the founding fathers.”
Last I heard, all judges were hand-picked. What I get from your comment is the bones (a slanted opinion) with no meat (some facts, examples, etc.). Why don’t you explain how they are destroying the Constitution? What specific Constitutional provision is being destroyed?
Aaron
If Bush lied to us about WMD’s then so did Clinton.
He used the same intelligence to bomb Iraq in Operation Desert Fox.
So which is it? Are both presidents along with other owrld leader liars? or was the latest intel mistaken.
Now, since I’m a reasonable non-partisan moderate, I’d say that neither president was lying, but the intel was wrong. I’d also say that given the past actions of Hussein, he doesn’t deserve any benefit of the doubt but the opposite: better safe than sorry.
Sojourner
My biggest concern is the intent of people like Clarence Thomas and Janice Rogers Brown to roll back critical protections, including environmental laws, minimum wage, overtime payment, and other protections that greatly impact the quality of life of most Americans. Brown has referred to these protections as socialist. The vast majority of Americans, I suspect, would disagree vehemently with that statement.
Rules like the fillibuster, Rule IV and the blue slip contribute significantly to checks and balances as well as balance of power, both of which are well represented in the Constitution. As history has shown, unrestrained power of a single party leads to fascism. I hope you’d agree that fascism is contrary to the Constitution.
Obviously judges are hand-picked. After that, they are subject to significant review and the requirement that at least a minimum number of members from BOTH parties find them acceptable. At least that’s how it was until Hatch made his power grab. Frankly, I think the founding fathers were right to encourage rules that result in the selection of more moderate judges.
Which country did Clinton invade based on that intelligence? I can’t seem to remember it.
willyb
“Obviously judges are hand-picked. After that, they are subject to significant review and the requirement that at least a minimum number of members from BOTH parties find them acceptable.”
The following is from Wikipedia:
“The U.S. Constitution does not specify a supermajority requirement for confirming the President’s judicial or executive branch nominations (or general legislation traditionally subject to filibuster), implying a simple majority would do. Therefore the nuclear option would restore the Senate’s constitutional role of advising and consenting to the President’s nominations with a simple majority.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option_%28filibuster%29
Perhaps you could point out the Constitutional provision that requires a minimum number of members of both parties find judges acceptable. While you’re at it, do the same for “Rule IV” and “blue slips.”
Sojourner
The Constitution allows the Congress to make up its own rules for how it will proceed. That is the basis for Rule IV and blue slips. The Senate was intended to be a deliberative body, not prone to the politics of the House. That’s the basis for the fillibuster.
Rick
As history has shown, unrestrained power of a single party leads to fascism.
So the New Deal was fascism? Gosh, all along I thought the criticism of it was that it was socialism.
And Soujourner, I’ll meet you halfway only insofar as stating that I expect government to lie. Certainly 1993-2001 proved it, along with the LBJ-Nixon era.
Now what’s our exit strategy for Kosovo?
Cordially…
willyb
“The Constitution allows the Congress to make up its own rules for how it will proceed.”
So, rules made up can be made-up again!
Sojourner
The New Deal era wasn’t unrestrained. FDR failed in his attempt to pack the Supreme Court. It remains to be seen if we will be so lucky as to avoid that fate this time.
Wow, lying about a blow job. How many people died from that? And don’t bother with the morality lectures. The Repubs gave up that argument when they supported the Bush administration.
I didn’t know we started a war in Kosovo. I thought it was pretty well under way – you know genocide and all that. I hope you’re not trying to re-write history.
The rules weren’t changed. They were ignored. Rule IV is still on the books. The Repubs just ignore it. It’s sad to see you defending that given that the Repubs claim to be the ones who advocate following the rules.
willyb
“Wow, lying about a blow job. How many people died from that?”
Nobody died, as far as I know. I mentioned the blow job in a prior comment to linger back to the good ole days, when we could trust our Preident to keep his mind on what’s important.
Kimmitt
We had a much better image when the President just “hung” around the Oval Office getting blow jobs from interns and ignored the terror threats that were building around us.
As versus, of course, pre-9/11 Bush, who focused like a laser beam on the issues which you are pretending that Clinton ignored. Remember when Clinton tried to do something about bin Laden, but your buddies in Congress were too busy getting their rocks off on Starr’s report to support the President in a time of war — instead accusing him of “wagging the dog”?
Let’s assume that the President got himself fifty or so really good encounters, for about an hour each. That’s fifty hours. From what I can tell, he spent a couple thousand dollars on gifts and suchlike. How much time did every single damn Republican lawmaker in this country spend on Clinton’s sex life? Hundreds of hours? Thousands? And Ken Starr spent thirty million dollars sorting it all out. I’m pretty clear on whose priorities are where. Maybe if you sons of b’s had spent less time undercutting the President’s efforts to defend us and more time paying attention to the threat, we wouldn’t have had quite so many problems.
Sojourner
Seems to me that Clinton was a whole lot more attentive to the job than Bush.
Haven’t you noticed that Bush seems to be missing in action a good deal of the time? Remember the person who started shooting at the White House? Don’t you remember where Bush was? He was in the gym. And where was he when the Cessna 150 terrorized DC? On a bike ride. And where was he when the warning memo about Bin Laden came through? Clearing brush on the ranch.
If a blow job would help focus Bush on what matters, I’d be quite happy to pay a prostitute to come in and service him.
willyb
The blow jobs were not Clinton’s problem, they just gave him the opportunity to lie to a grand jury. If having oral sex with an intern is no big deal, why did he lie?
And as for Bush being missing in action, I have no basis for knowing whether he was where he needed to be on any particular occassion. How is it you know where he should be? These comments about the shooting at the White House and the Cessna 150 reflect your naivete.
Kimmitt
If having oral sex with an intern is no big deal, why did he lie?
You cannot seriously be asking this question — the man had an affair. He lied so that his wife wouldn’t find out. It’s not a big deal to me because if we kicked every single man who has had an affair out of Federal politics, we couldn’t form a quorum in either the House or the Senate. Private lives should, to some degree, be private, and as soon as the Right acknowledges this once again, maybe we can start attracting good people who’ve made a few mistakes — or who don’t care to have their lives put under microscopes — into politics again.
Again, if Clinton is responsible for his failure to fight Al Qaeda, why is Bush not responsible for his failures for the nine months of his term? And why is the Republican Congress not responsible for falsely claiming that Clinton was seeking to “wag the dog”?
willyb
I did not say people who have made mistakes should be kicked out, he should have admitted his affair. He should not have committed perjury in front of a grand jury. The fact that he had an affair, and then lied in front of a grand jury, reflects on his character.
So not completely undoing what Clinton had done in 8 years (and others had done over various administrations) in the first 8 months of his adminstration is equivalent to you??? Get a clue!
Sojourner
The Bush administration intentionally rejected the warnings about terrorism provided to them by the Clinton staff. Because of their arrogance, 3000 people died on 9/11. They didn’t even bother to hold meetings to plan how to protect our country. And they ignored dozens of warnings. Bush should have been impeached for his arrogance and incompetence, and certainly Condi has a lot of blood on her hands. These people are shameful.
willyb
Sojourner:
Your comment is total bullshit. This whole issue was vetted during the run-up to the 2004 election.
Sojourner
Vetted by whom? Check out the 9/11 report – read the whole thing, not just the bleached out conclusions.
willyb
You might want to reread you comments, and then point out where the conclusion is located in the 9/11 report.
Sojourner
You might want to read the entire report rather than just the sanitized conclusions. Notice the many opportunities the Bush administration had to stop 9/11 from happening. Notice all the times they did NOTHING.
READ THE REPORT.
willyb
Sojourner:
I have read the whole report. I would imagine the people that reached the report’s conclusions read the whole report.
Apparently, you choose to to ignore the conclusions of the report because you believe other conclusions are more appropriate. Using your approach, I could cite evidence to conclude that Clinton “intentionally rejected the warnings about terrorism provided to HIM by HIS staff. Because of HIS arrogance, 3000 people died on 9/11. HE didn’t even bother to hold meetings to plan how to protect our country. And HE ignored dozens of warnings. CLINTON should have been impeached for his arrogance and incompetence.”
Sojourner
I ignore the conclusions because the committee members (both Dems and Repubs) have admitted that the conclusions were softened in order to avoid embarassing the administration. Their advice was to read the entire report, study the sequence of events, assess the actions/inactions of those involved, and draw your own conclusions. That’s the advice I’m passing on to you. If you wish to believe the Bush line that somehow they were doing their jobs yet managed to miss all those warnings, that’s your business.
Excuse me but Clinton and his folks met regularly to discuss the problem of terrorism and made some efforts (however limited) to try to do something about it. Unfortunately, his efforts were overridden by the hysteria surrounding the Lewinsky affair. Yes, he bears some responsibility for that but so does the Republican party for diverting his attention from more important matters and stifling his efforts with accusations of wag the dog.
So, no, your comments about Clinton are inaccurate.
willyb
Look this discussion is truly a waste of my time. No matter what I say, You are going to land back where you started. I think there is enough blame to go around for everyone and nothing is accomplished by placing blame, which is not to say I think Bush deserves the bulk of the balme in this complicated area. So have at it if you like, I’ve got better things to do.
Sojourner
Bye
Kimmitt
I did not say people who have made mistakes should be kicked out, he should have admitted his affair.
So what you’re really saying is that every politician should have a $30 million investigation to determine whether or not he’s having an affair, then have his or her affair turned into a Federal case through a perjury charge?
Yeah, he shouldn’t have had an affair. But doing someone who you aren’t married to and keeping it quiet shouldn’t be criminalized either.