Help repair the damage “they” (being Newsweek) caused? I didn’t know that Newsweek were the ones accused of abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. I can’t believe the far right pundits are keeping this issue going John. Is it because there isn’t alot of good news on SS reform, the nuclear option, the Bolton nomination, etc.? Trying to demonize the press to explain why the agenda isn’t sailing through Congress? Or just trying to beat the press into final submission
2.
Thomas
“What was the last “big one” that secular, small-government, constitutionalist conservatives won under the GWB administration?”
Here’s what I don’t understand: When did President Bush ever pretend to be a secular, small-government, constitutionalist kinda guy? So why are so many people like you feeling disillusioned with this admin and the party in general? Did you believe their rhetoric was harmless pandering?
Like you, I’m a Republican whose unhappy with the President and most of congress, unlike you, I’m not surprised any of this is happening.
3.
JPS
Yeah, that’s it, Libertine. Outrage at the press for running stories that they haven’t proven is demonization.
John, I don’t expect them to certify categorically that it never happened. They ran a story whose best defense is, “Well, we don’t know it happened, but we can’t say for sure it didn’t [and we bet it probably did].” I would like them to be just a little less grudging and a little more contrite in admitting that they were irresponsible and negligent. Does that really make me Ann Coulter batshit-insane?
4.
Billy D
John, I don’t know what LGF you were reading for the last couple o’ years, becuase the one I have been reading has ALWAYS BEEN BATSHIT FUCKING INSANE. And soon enough, you’ll notice that your buddy Glenn is just as fucking crazy — indeed, he just linked approvingly that LGF story.
By the way, I had this moment a while ago, when I woke up and realized that all these people I thought were rational were really completely fucking fascist, and I had been in denial about it.
5.
Libertine
Yeah, that’s it, Libertine. Outrage at the press for running stories that they haven’t proven is demonization.
I have no problem with Newsweek being roundly criticized for the Koran story. They apologized, retracted and have been pillored on the blogosphere. The whole thing is going to cost them money from the hit their credibility has taken because of this story. I would think that would be enough. So continuing to go on about this story is an attempt to demonize them…
6.
jdm
Neutral. What does that mean, John?
Either NEWSWEEK knows it (or any event for that matter) happened or it doesn’t know. It either has evidence (as in real evidence, John, not “lots” of variously confirmed reports about other perhaps related events) – or it doesn’t. This isn’t an opinion issue.
Ann Coulter bat-shit insane… you’re funny, John.
And for the record, the proprietor of LGF is a former Democrat/liberal.
You don’t want neutral. You want them to say, unequivocably that it didn’t, and they can;t. Because there are loads of reports that it did happen, loads of testimony that it did. They can not prove it one way or another, so they are NEUTRAL. They don’t know. But you want them to pretend they do know.
That isn’t neutral.
And I have defended the Charles Johnson from venomous attacks for four years, but he is wrong about this.
9.
Stormy70
Newsweek is not neutral, they are anti-American. Do you give them a pass for running separate covers overseas, that would ignite a firestorm if they printed them in America? Hey, they apologised for getting the story wrong, but I’m waiting for the apology for their anti-American foreign editions. The press is not neutral, they are biased. Isikoff will be fine, he will just have to work a little harder on his sourcing to be believed.
Al- If one more conservative cries a river about the dead in Afghanistan, I am going to puke.
These are the same people that the folks at LGF would argue have no rights at all under the law and should be shot on site for their anti-American stance.
Spare me that bullshit, please.
11.
Libertine
. His editor said their source recanted prior to publication, yet they ran with the story. What were they hoping
12.
jdm
Then, John, Newsweek cannot be neutral, because they don’t know. There. That wasn’t so hard, was it?
And you don’t have any idea what I want because I haven’t told you.
… an accusation of “Ann Counter bat-shit insane”. From you. Heh.
Not knowing requires neutrality. There have been charges it happened, yet they can not confirm them. They can, likewise, not reject them.
HENCE, THEY ARE NEUTRAL.
14.
TJ Jackson
Mr. Cole:
Perhaps you can enlighten us all on why Newsweek apparently has such dramatically different standards of evidence for publishing a story and denying one? Just thought you might be able to explain how they could publish what they couldn’t confirm and now can’t retract what they can’t confirm.
15.
ketel
“They cannot be neutral because they don’t know.”
Wha-wha-what?!? To me that is the height of neutrality. You don’t know, so you can’t opine without being biased one way or the other. It might help Newsweek form the decision you want them to if the Pentagon were to deny that this happened. Unfortunately for you, and despite many, many reports of this, they haven’t and thus Newsweek must remain NEUTRAL. Stop redifining our words please!
jdm doesn’t get it John. It’s hard to see (and even harder to admit) you’re a hardliner when you’re a hardliner. To these people, bias only goes one way, and they’re right all the time.
16.
jdm
You got no proof, you got nothing. You assume it didn’t happen because you can’t prove it did. Your neutrality argument yet another variation of the fake-but accurate ploy.
There is proof enough of real incidences without helping these yahoos from Newsweek cover their asses just so you can get your digs in against these Republicans who so disgust you.
17.
ketel
jdm, for more time extra slow for the slow learners, or should I say ‘low hanging fruit’. The gist of what John is saying is that the original thing was blown out of proportion to begin with, and now even after they have apologized and retracted and are NOT, repeat NOT, pushing the story anymore, you freaks are still calling for some bastardized version of neutrality that pleases only you.
And there is proof. There’s an ongoing military investigation and no officials will deny the charges. Do you get that? No one is denying it, so it very well may have happened.
18.
ketel
‘for’ = ‘one’
Don’t feel bad, I’ve apparently got some low hangers, too!
19.
narciso
Citing India, as the impartial observer on our view of Moslems;
those three wars,the 1947 revolution and that double
game of chicken; over Kashmir;
the Kosovo/Chechnya of South
West Asia. The point is, every
one of those stories, that are
detrimental to the war effort
are amplified; with other events
are ignored, or sidelined. To
sue one recent example; the Sunni
side of the Iraq case, is always presented sympathetically, including thatof ex Saddam Mukharabat, SSO Republican Guard et al)any action by the Shia and
/or Kurds is said to trigger the
inevitable civil war; no mention
how how these same victims; are
the chief supporters of the Mosque
arsenals seen in Fallujah/Ramadi
et al; Zarquawi et al.Some stupid
self absorbed reservists at Abu
Ghraib; reinacting a Tarantino
film; shouldn’t represent the
US military. Another example is
how the tragic incidents at Bagram
should encourage the Afghans to
take charge; get real, remember
the Northern Alliance’s component warlords behaviors; Seriously it’s
starting to feel like Ted Rall territory here
20.
dispassionate
“When did everyone in my party go Ann Coulter batshit insane?”
Democrats, and most of the rest of the world (including most conservatives in other countries)believe this happened when Bush was elected. It’s only now that Republicans seem to be coming out of it, and questioning their policies.
21.
syn
Glenn Reynolds is one his way to becoming another Ann Coulter. Geez, the world is really wacky….better get the most recent copy of Newsweek to verify this bit of information.
What the hell does Glenn Reynolds have to do with anything?
23.
Al Maviva
John, I don’t give a flying fuck about Afghanistan. I do care about this country, and what Newsweek did was to legitmate something that looks to me like a slander. They ran the story in spite of their unimpeachable Pentagon source recanting. After five years of lecturing the government on how it should be more sensitive to Muslims, it ran an article that was a cause, if not the cause, of a number of deaths. Most of all, the lie screwed up the U.S. image a bit more – not that “America is Dead” isn’t a whack – and spawned a new mythos about the great Satan which will no doubt come back to haunt us.
And for the record – you can check your comments on this – I didn’t have a major problem with the NY Times running the Bagram torture story, and am in fact cheering for some prosecutions, up to and including the first line company grade officers, who surely bear some responsibility for these crimes, even if their own crime was merely negligence and dereliction of duty.
And at the end of the day, yes, I do have a problem with needlessly killed people anywhere, especially when some arrogant prick’s dishonesty is at the heart of it. I believe the right to live is universal, and while a dead guy in Afghanistan is more remote to me than a dead neighbor, the principle still matters. “Just a blip” my ass. They are even less of a blip, given that the blip is intertwined with U.S. strategic interests.
24.
dispassionate
I read your blog quite a bit, but rarely post. The main reason is I am a conservative but Australian. I used to live in the US for a few years though. So I believe I have some perspective one what a conservative is in the US and outside it.
I was there in Orange County in the first Gulf War when the first George Bush was president.
What Americans don’t seem to realise is Bush’s policies have never been supported by any conservative party in the world. There is not one other country where he could get elected as leader of his party, let alone the country.
So overseas people are not being critical for the sake of it, they just don’t see in Bush’s policies a valid conservative, they never did. I believe overseas conservatives could see all the danger signs you talk about now, from listening to the rhetoric right from the beginning.
Bush was a nationalist, not a conservative. Now he is finished because he can’t run again, so people have to find another leader, and there are no more right wing nationalists to take his place.
So with luck the next leader will be a fiscal conservative, but he will likely lose because he won’t be able to inflame the passions of people like Bush did.
Bush ruled by emotionalising policies, now that the emotion is going out of the argument people are thinking conservatively again.
25.
SDN
Mr. Cole is simply having his “Andrew Sullivan moment”. Since Bush isn’t doing what he wants and continues to actually treat his faith as something that matters, hanging around with “those (ick) Christians”, etc., then snit fits will be pitched, no matter how much damage it does as the Left’s new poster child for “your side agrees with me!”
I feel about Mr. Cole exactly the way I feel about John McCain: It’s all about me. And you can spare me any comments about military service: if soldiers were saints, then a synonym for treason wouldn’t be “Benedict Arnold”…. as in General, as in war hero, until, once again, someone decided they weren’t getting their “just deserts” (after the battle of Saratoga) and headed for the other side. The more things change, etc.
Repeating and agreeing with stories that AQ briefs its’ recruits to make up by the carload (see LGF, forex) isn’t about investigating and isn’t about truth. It’s about grabbing any club that’s handy.
26.
Andrei
“I feel about Mr. Cole exactly the way I feel about John McCain: It’s all about me. And you can spare me any comments about military service: if soldiers were saints, then a synonym for treason wouldn’t be “Benedict Arnold”…”
There you have it John. (Cole and McCain.)
The deal is sealed. You are now being discussed in the same breath as the term treason and guys like Benedict Arnold.
A classic guilt by association tactic used by so many hacks in talk radio. Pretty soon, we’ll all be calling you Mr. Arnold, and wonder whatever became of that Cole character.
I think Pink Floyd’s “Comfortably Numb” should be played at moments like this.
There’ll be no more AAAAHHHHHHHH!!!… But you may feel a little sick.
“They ran the story in spite of their unimpeachable Pentagon source recanting. ”
Al, the source recanted AFTER they published.
30.
Tongueboy
I asked my state police about a report that John Cole was a registered sex offender. See, several former convicted felons said he was so I felt compelled to check it out. The state police couldn’t confirm it for me since Mr. Cole lived in a different state. I checked in another state and though they wouldn’t deny the possibility, did have some quibbles about that bank fraud rumor I was working on. Good enough for me; they didn’t immediately deny it so it must be true.
Ooops, my bad. Turns out my single source wasn’t accurate. I apologize for any inconvenience and lives lost but remain absolutely neutral about the truth of those sex offender rumors.
Except, of course, you are equating an FBI official with a convicted felon, and you are equating rumors from convicted felons with the Red Cross Inquiry and rumors from our own troops, and=, of course, me not being on any sex offender list in any states actually would be an affirmation of innocence, as opposed to a state official saying I think it is in the records but I just can’t find it.
Except for that- the analogy is perfect.
32.
TJ Jackson
Tongueboy:
Brilliant.
33.
Tongueboy
Thanks, TJ. I see you have received no defense from John of Newsweek’s higher standards of evidence for a story retraction than for publishing the original story.
John, what is surprising is that you miss the broader context. The “several felons” analogy refers to the constant stream of Koran-flushing allegations from former Gitmo detainees that have somehow morphed into a stream-of-allegations-so-there-must-be-something-to-it-riiiiight?! meme in the MSM. What is the “FBI official” reference; does it have something to do with the purported e-mail tussle between some FBI officials and Southcom officers over aggressive interrogation techniques outlined in the now retracted story?
Your reference to the Red Cross is puzzling. Are you saying that the Newsweek report is bolstered by certain Red Cross reports? If so, why didn’t they cite them? Never mind for a moment that International Red Cross investigations into Geneva Convention violations are confidential and that leaked reports may be evidence of a hidden agenda; you go further than even the article’s authors were willing to go by citing these reports in defense of their reporting. Remember, the issue at hand is not the ultimate truth of the allegations, some of which may well turn out to be true, but the eagerness of these reporters and their editors to ignore sound jounalistic practice and journalistic responsibility to rush into print an article which, by a coincidence of extreme proportions (heh), defamed the U.S. military and had the potential, since realized, of giving hotheads a feeble, totally unjustified, but real excuse to roil the waters against the United States.
And I still remain neutral about those sex offender rumors. After all, the state police “couldn’t confirm it” (the rumor) “for me”. And since John-Cole-as-a-sex-offender fits the reporting template I’ve developed over my many years in journalism, my sourcing of several felons and lack of definitive denials by state police was certainly poor journalistic practice but in no way negates the truth of the charges. It just means we still cannot be sure of their truth. The verdict is still out.
34.
TJ Jackson
Tingueboy:
Good points but you might want to consider the following before considering the Red Cross an objective, neutral or even reliable source of data. The red cross has allowed its abulances to be used by Hamas in Israel and the occupied territories to conduct terrorist operations on several occasions.
The meme about prisoner abuse ignores the fact that the Geneva Convention calls for summary execution of illegal combatants. Something the US has not observed and which no other army in the world would reject. As far as I am concerned international agreements should be oberserved and enforced to the fullest when dealing with such filth.
Libertine
Help repair the damage “they” (being Newsweek) caused? I didn’t know that Newsweek were the ones accused of abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. I can’t believe the far right pundits are keeping this issue going John. Is it because there isn’t alot of good news on SS reform, the nuclear option, the Bolton nomination, etc.? Trying to demonize the press to explain why the agenda isn’t sailing through Congress? Or just trying to beat the press into final submission
Thomas
“What was the last “big one” that secular, small-government, constitutionalist conservatives won under the GWB administration?”
Here’s what I don’t understand: When did President Bush ever pretend to be a secular, small-government, constitutionalist kinda guy? So why are so many people like you feeling disillusioned with this admin and the party in general? Did you believe their rhetoric was harmless pandering?
Like you, I’m a Republican whose unhappy with the President and most of congress, unlike you, I’m not surprised any of this is happening.
JPS
Yeah, that’s it, Libertine. Outrage at the press for running stories that they haven’t proven is demonization.
John, I don’t expect them to certify categorically that it never happened. They ran a story whose best defense is, “Well, we don’t know it happened, but we can’t say for sure it didn’t [and we bet it probably did].” I would like them to be just a little less grudging and a little more contrite in admitting that they were irresponsible and negligent. Does that really make me Ann Coulter batshit-insane?
Billy D
John, I don’t know what LGF you were reading for the last couple o’ years, becuase the one I have been reading has ALWAYS BEEN BATSHIT FUCKING INSANE. And soon enough, you’ll notice that your buddy Glenn is just as fucking crazy — indeed, he just linked approvingly that LGF story.
By the way, I had this moment a while ago, when I woke up and realized that all these people I thought were rational were really completely fucking fascist, and I had been in denial about it.
Libertine
Yeah, that’s it, Libertine. Outrage at the press for running stories that they haven’t proven is demonization.
I have no problem with Newsweek being roundly criticized for the Koran story. They apologized, retracted and have been pillored on the blogosphere. The whole thing is going to cost them money from the hit their credibility has taken because of this story. I would think that would be enough. So continuing to go on about this story is an attempt to demonize them…
jdm
Neutral. What does that mean, John?
Either NEWSWEEK knows it (or any event for that matter) happened or it doesn’t know. It either has evidence (as in real evidence, John, not “lots” of variously confirmed reports about other perhaps related events) – or it doesn’t. This isn’t an opinion issue.
Ann Coulter bat-shit insane… you’re funny, John.
And for the record, the proprietor of LGF is a former Democrat/liberal.
Al Maviva
Isikoff said it was a blip yesterday. That
John Cole
Neutral means fucking neutral.
You don’t want neutral. You want them to say, unequivocably that it didn’t, and they can;t. Because there are loads of reports that it did happen, loads of testimony that it did. They can not prove it one way or another, so they are NEUTRAL. They don’t know. But you want them to pretend they do know.
That isn’t neutral.
And I have defended the Charles Johnson from venomous attacks for four years, but he is wrong about this.
Stormy70
Newsweek is not neutral, they are anti-American. Do you give them a pass for running separate covers overseas, that would ignite a firestorm if they printed them in America? Hey, they apologised for getting the story wrong, but I’m waiting for the apology for their anti-American foreign editions. The press is not neutral, they are biased. Isikoff will be fine, he will just have to work a little harder on his sourcing to be believed.
John Cole
BTW- Reagan was a former Democrat- your point?
Al- If one more conservative cries a river about the dead in Afghanistan, I am going to puke.
These are the same people that the folks at LGF would argue have no rights at all under the law and should be shot on site for their anti-American stance.
Spare me that bullshit, please.
Libertine
. His editor said their source recanted prior to publication, yet they ran with the story. What were they hoping
jdm
Then, John, Newsweek cannot be neutral, because they don’t know. There. That wasn’t so hard, was it?
And you don’t have any idea what I want because I haven’t told you.
… an accusation of “Ann Counter bat-shit insane”. From you. Heh.
John Cole
Not knowing requires neutrality. There have been charges it happened, yet they can not confirm them. They can, likewise, not reject them.
HENCE, THEY ARE NEUTRAL.
TJ Jackson
Mr. Cole:
Perhaps you can enlighten us all on why Newsweek apparently has such dramatically different standards of evidence for publishing a story and denying one? Just thought you might be able to explain how they could publish what they couldn’t confirm and now can’t retract what they can’t confirm.
ketel
“They cannot be neutral because they don’t know.”
Wha-wha-what?!? To me that is the height of neutrality. You don’t know, so you can’t opine without being biased one way or the other. It might help Newsweek form the decision you want them to if the Pentagon were to deny that this happened. Unfortunately for you, and despite many, many reports of this, they haven’t and thus Newsweek must remain NEUTRAL. Stop redifining our words please!
jdm doesn’t get it John. It’s hard to see (and even harder to admit) you’re a hardliner when you’re a hardliner. To these people, bias only goes one way, and they’re right all the time.
jdm
You got no proof, you got nothing. You assume it didn’t happen because you can’t prove it did. Your neutrality argument yet another variation of the fake-but accurate ploy.
There is proof enough of real incidences without helping these yahoos from Newsweek cover their asses just so you can get your digs in against these Republicans who so disgust you.
ketel
jdm, for more time extra slow for the slow learners, or should I say ‘low hanging fruit’. The gist of what John is saying is that the original thing was blown out of proportion to begin with, and now even after they have apologized and retracted and are NOT, repeat NOT, pushing the story anymore, you freaks are still calling for some bastardized version of neutrality that pleases only you.
And there is proof. There’s an ongoing military investigation and no officials will deny the charges. Do you get that? No one is denying it, so it very well may have happened.
ketel
‘for’ = ‘one’
Don’t feel bad, I’ve apparently got some low hangers, too!
narciso
Citing India, as the impartial observer on our view of Moslems;
those three wars,the 1947 revolution and that double
game of chicken; over Kashmir;
the Kosovo/Chechnya of South
West Asia. The point is, every
one of those stories, that are
detrimental to the war effort
are amplified; with other events
are ignored, or sidelined. To
sue one recent example; the Sunni
side of the Iraq case, is always presented sympathetically, including thatof ex Saddam Mukharabat, SSO Republican Guard et al)any action by the Shia and
/or Kurds is said to trigger the
inevitable civil war; no mention
how how these same victims; are
the chief supporters of the Mosque
arsenals seen in Fallujah/Ramadi
et al; Zarquawi et al.Some stupid
self absorbed reservists at Abu
Ghraib; reinacting a Tarantino
film; shouldn’t represent the
US military. Another example is
how the tragic incidents at Bagram
should encourage the Afghans to
take charge; get real, remember
the Northern Alliance’s component warlords behaviors; Seriously it’s
starting to feel like Ted Rall territory here
dispassionate
“When did everyone in my party go Ann Coulter batshit insane?”
Democrats, and most of the rest of the world (including most conservatives in other countries)believe this happened when Bush was elected. It’s only now that Republicans seem to be coming out of it, and questioning their policies.
syn
Glenn Reynolds is one his way to becoming another Ann Coulter. Geez, the world is really wacky….better get the most recent copy of Newsweek to verify this bit of information.
Narciso, I can relate.
John Cole
What the hell does Glenn Reynolds have to do with anything?
Al Maviva
John, I don’t give a flying fuck about Afghanistan. I do care about this country, and what Newsweek did was to legitmate something that looks to me like a slander. They ran the story in spite of their unimpeachable Pentagon source recanting. After five years of lecturing the government on how it should be more sensitive to Muslims, it ran an article that was a cause, if not the cause, of a number of deaths. Most of all, the lie screwed up the U.S. image a bit more – not that “America is Dead” isn’t a whack – and spawned a new mythos about the great Satan which will no doubt come back to haunt us.
And for the record – you can check your comments on this – I didn’t have a major problem with the NY Times running the Bagram torture story, and am in fact cheering for some prosecutions, up to and including the first line company grade officers, who surely bear some responsibility for these crimes, even if their own crime was merely negligence and dereliction of duty.
And at the end of the day, yes, I do have a problem with needlessly killed people anywhere, especially when some arrogant prick’s dishonesty is at the heart of it. I believe the right to live is universal, and while a dead guy in Afghanistan is more remote to me than a dead neighbor, the principle still matters. “Just a blip” my ass. They are even less of a blip, given that the blip is intertwined with U.S. strategic interests.
dispassionate
I read your blog quite a bit, but rarely post. The main reason is I am a conservative but Australian. I used to live in the US for a few years though. So I believe I have some perspective one what a conservative is in the US and outside it.
I was there in Orange County in the first Gulf War when the first George Bush was president.
What Americans don’t seem to realise is Bush’s policies have never been supported by any conservative party in the world. There is not one other country where he could get elected as leader of his party, let alone the country.
So overseas people are not being critical for the sake of it, they just don’t see in Bush’s policies a valid conservative, they never did. I believe overseas conservatives could see all the danger signs you talk about now, from listening to the rhetoric right from the beginning.
Bush was a nationalist, not a conservative. Now he is finished because he can’t run again, so people have to find another leader, and there are no more right wing nationalists to take his place.
So with luck the next leader will be a fiscal conservative, but he will likely lose because he won’t be able to inflame the passions of people like Bush did.
Bush ruled by emotionalising policies, now that the emotion is going out of the argument people are thinking conservatively again.
SDN
Mr. Cole is simply having his “Andrew Sullivan moment”. Since Bush isn’t doing what he wants and continues to actually treat his faith as something that matters, hanging around with “those (ick) Christians”, etc., then snit fits will be pitched, no matter how much damage it does as the Left’s new poster child for “your side agrees with me!”
I feel about Mr. Cole exactly the way I feel about John McCain: It’s all about me. And you can spare me any comments about military service: if soldiers were saints, then a synonym for treason wouldn’t be “Benedict Arnold”…. as in General, as in war hero, until, once again, someone decided they weren’t getting their “just deserts” (after the battle of Saratoga) and headed for the other side. The more things change, etc.
Repeating and agreeing with stories that AQ briefs its’ recruits to make up by the carload (see LGF, forex) isn’t about investigating and isn’t about truth. It’s about grabbing any club that’s handy.
Andrei
“I feel about Mr. Cole exactly the way I feel about John McCain: It’s all about me. And you can spare me any comments about military service: if soldiers were saints, then a synonym for treason wouldn’t be “Benedict Arnold”…”
There you have it John. (Cole and McCain.)
The deal is sealed. You are now being discussed in the same breath as the term treason and guys like Benedict Arnold.
A classic guilt by association tactic used by so many hacks in talk radio. Pretty soon, we’ll all be calling you Mr. Arnold, and wonder whatever became of that Cole character.
I think Pink Floyd’s “Comfortably Numb” should be played at moments like this.
There’ll be no more AAAAHHHHHHHH!!!… But you may feel a little sick.
Kimmitt
When did everyone in my party go Ann Coulter batshit insane?
Well, there was the part where y’all impeached the President of the United States for having an affair…
John Cole
SDN- This one is all about you.
Go fuck yourself.
Mary
“They ran the story in spite of their unimpeachable Pentagon source recanting. ”
Al, the source recanted AFTER they published.
Tongueboy
I asked my state police about a report that John Cole was a registered sex offender. See, several former convicted felons said he was so I felt compelled to check it out. The state police couldn’t confirm it for me since Mr. Cole lived in a different state. I checked in another state and though they wouldn’t deny the possibility, did have some quibbles about that bank fraud rumor I was working on. Good enough for me; they didn’t immediately deny it so it must be true.
Ooops, my bad. Turns out my single source wasn’t accurate. I apologize for any inconvenience and lives lost but remain absolutely neutral about the truth of those sex offender rumors.
John Cole
Except, of course, you are equating an FBI official with a convicted felon, and you are equating rumors from convicted felons with the Red Cross Inquiry and rumors from our own troops, and=, of course, me not being on any sex offender list in any states actually would be an affirmation of innocence, as opposed to a state official saying I think it is in the records but I just can’t find it.
Except for that- the analogy is perfect.
TJ Jackson
Tongueboy:
Brilliant.
Tongueboy
Thanks, TJ. I see you have received no defense from John of Newsweek’s higher standards of evidence for a story retraction than for publishing the original story.
John, what is surprising is that you miss the broader context. The “several felons” analogy refers to the constant stream of Koran-flushing allegations from former Gitmo detainees that have somehow morphed into a stream-of-allegations-so-there-must-be-something-to-it-riiiiight?! meme in the MSM. What is the “FBI official” reference; does it have something to do with the purported e-mail tussle between some FBI officials and Southcom officers over aggressive interrogation techniques outlined in the now retracted story?
Your reference to the Red Cross is puzzling. Are you saying that the Newsweek report is bolstered by certain Red Cross reports? If so, why didn’t they cite them? Never mind for a moment that International Red Cross investigations into Geneva Convention violations are confidential and that leaked reports may be evidence of a hidden agenda; you go further than even the article’s authors were willing to go by citing these reports in defense of their reporting. Remember, the issue at hand is not the ultimate truth of the allegations, some of which may well turn out to be true, but the eagerness of these reporters and their editors to ignore sound jounalistic practice and journalistic responsibility to rush into print an article which, by a coincidence of extreme proportions (heh), defamed the U.S. military and had the potential, since realized, of giving hotheads a feeble, totally unjustified, but real excuse to roil the waters against the United States.
And I still remain neutral about those sex offender rumors. After all, the state police “couldn’t confirm it” (the rumor) “for me”. And since John-Cole-as-a-sex-offender fits the reporting template I’ve developed over my many years in journalism, my sourcing of several felons and lack of definitive denials by state police was certainly poor journalistic practice but in no way negates the truth of the charges. It just means we still cannot be sure of their truth. The verdict is still out.
TJ Jackson
Tingueboy:
Good points but you might want to consider the following before considering the Red Cross an objective, neutral or even reliable source of data. The red cross has allowed its abulances to be used by Hamas in Israel and the occupied territories to conduct terrorist operations on several occasions.
The meme about prisoner abuse ignores the fact that the Geneva Convention calls for summary execution of illegal combatants. Something the US has not observed and which no other army in the world would reject. As far as I am concerned international agreements should be oberserved and enforced to the fullest when dealing with such filth.
Kimmitt
Geneva Convention calls for summary execution of illegal combatants.
Cite, please?