'Newsweek' retracts Koran desecration story

[russ_watters]

There were other reports showing Bush did not serve his full term in the Guard, and the CBS memo was never proven as being not valid.

That isn't good enough and you know it. Even CBS admitted that (which is why they retracted the story). The memo must be proven valid - not just not be proven not valid - to be a credible/usable source. Again, (same as in the recent discussion about debate tactics), you're trying to present a binary and equal burden-of-proof situation where none exists. You can't prove a negative, but CBS's own experts did the next best thing: they said they could not authenticate the documents. Proving them forgeries (while one CBS examiner implied it, he stopped short of actually saying it) is not necessary (which is why CBS eventually retracted the story and fired all those people).

In the meantime, no one lost their job or had their careers affected for the stories about Kerry's military service.

That's because that story wasn't fabricated by the media. They were simply reporting on the claims of others. Remember, the SBV were just one of dozens of such groups operating on both sides of the election. In fact, IIRC, Kerry had something like four times the soft-money attack ads going for him as Bush did (~$40 million iirc). MoveOn.org, alone had something like twice the budget all the anti-Kerry groups had (the SBV had something like $500k). It just happens that MoveOn.org alienated people and the SBV touched a nerve.

As a result, there was more negative affect on Kerry than on Bush, so how was the election subverted against Bush?

Its one of the true ironies of the situation - big miscalculations by Kerry and CBS. Nevertheless, I didn't say the election was subverted, I said the story was intended to subvert the election. That comes from the gleefully toned emails sent by the producer prior to airing the story. The words were something to the effect of 'this could swing the election'. Whether she hoped it would because she didn't like Bush or she hoped it would because she wanted a Pulitzer doesn't much matter to me. Her (and, more importantly, Rather's) dislike of Bush certainly played a role in their willingness to leave their integrity at home.

 

[plover]

Humiliating and annoying some prisoners isn't much compared to having human feces thrown at you.

I doubt you could find a social scientist (a reputable one anyway, though I'm not sure the shills would even argue this one) that would agree with you. The psychological effects of the power dynamics in prison situations are well documented. To the degree you are making an argument, and not just repeating yourself, you seem to be making an argument from machismo. My arguments have touched on preventing authoritarian abuses, promoting effective interrogation, the wider context of military detention, and the training and sense of duty of soldiers. Your response addresses none of these.

It prevents a huge health hazard and obviously shows that they arent in 'total control'.

You have neither shown why the situations you've mentioned violate my definition of 'total control', nor proposed a different one.

I'd also like to see some proof over how a majority of those people are innocent by the way.

You don't get to put words in my mouth. I did not say 'a majority'. I said 'a good percentage', the implication being: not a few isolated cases of mistakes, but, rather, enough to constitute a systematic problem that needs addressing. I don't know whether it is a majority or not. As an example, about a quarter of the detainees at Abu Ghraib were released without charges last June. Do you have evidence a substantial number of these releases were mistakes?

The rest of your post is pretty much boilerplate liberal baiting and Muslim bashing. Air your prejudices if you like, but if you are not going to make a real argument and give support for it, there is little point in continuing this.

 

[Pengwuino]

I have not responded to the latter 3 as i agree that there should be changes in how those are handled but no, this is not machismo as you stated. You have failed to even hint at the idea that throwing feces at guards are bad and seem to imply that "since there prisoners, they should be able to do that".

The fact that these people have attacked and have thrown stuff at guards demonstrates that the guards are not in "total control". Nevermind the reports of being shot at from off-base by Cubans that the soldiers have had to deal with from day 1. Total control would mean these detainees would not be able to do anything and being able to attack a guard or throw something at one woudl be a simple pipe dream.

And if you can provide any evidence that these people were actually innocent (and not simply released on pressure from the international community), I would take to heart such an accusation.

Also, i am showing about as much anti-muslim hatred as you are showing anti-christian hatred. You declare that all of this is done because we don't care to learn about their religion and I am saying basically the same thing on the other side of the coin, we have such huge problems because there's a large amount of people who don't care to learn about the other sides religion. Vent all your hatred of Americans that you want if you need to.

 

[plover]

I have not responded to the latter 3 as i agree that there should be changes in how those are handled but no, this is not machismo as you stated.

Ok.

You have failed to even hint at the idea that throwing feces at guards are bad and seem to imply that "since there prisoners, they should be able to do that".

This is inaccurate. First of all, my original argument had nothing to do with what the prisoners "should" (or should not) be allowed to do, it was about allowing guards to make arbitrary reprisals. (Perhaps, first of all should be to say that you've never even provided a citation to show that an incident like the one you're discussing actually occurred. I've just let that pass, as it does not sound like a particularly unlikely incident for any prison.) Secondly, I said above: "Do precisely what is necessary to maintain order, no more." Preventing attacks on guards is part of that. Under harsh conditions, one expects prisoners to be defiant, and to use whatever limited means they have toward that end. There are numerous methods for guards to use to ensure their own safety – seriously, a lot of effort has been put into coming up with procedures to ensure the safety of both guard and prisoner in these kinds of circumstances. For the most part, incidents such as the ones you describe mean that the guards are either being careless or are inadequately trained.

The fact that these people have attacked and have thrown stuff at guards demonstrates that the guards are not in "total control". Nevermind the reports of being shot at from off-base by Cubans that the soldiers have had to deal with from day 1. Total control would mean these detainees would not be able to do anything and being able to attack a guard or throw something at one woudl be a simple pipe dream.

As far as I can tell, your definition is based on an after-the-fact analysis, i.e. if no guards were attacked, they had total control. My definition is based on what the circumstances make possible: all the power is on the side of the guards, they have the force to back up whatever they want to do (such as e.g. leave prisoners tied up in a fetal position for a day or two lying in their own excrement as the FBI reported happening). I would say that if no guards were attacked, they used good enough judgement and procedures to keep themselves safe. And that this is a separate question as to whether their judgement was equally good and their procedures equally appropriate so as also to prevent abuse of the prisoners.

Actually this is where a citation about the feces throwing you're talking about becomes important. If it happened once, then the incident is almost certainly meaningless in terms of drawing any conclusions about the prisoners (less certain, but still quite likely is that it says nothing about the guards either). The circumstances at Gitmo could easily lead to some prisoners losing their minds. On the other hand, if this was a pattern of defiance, why was nothing done to prevent it after the first or second incident?

Just because you want to be angry about this incident doesn't mean there's anything to be angry about.

And if you can provide any evidence that these people were actually innocent (and not simply released on pressure from the international community), I would take to heart such an accusation.

"Innocent until proven guilty" – it's not a principle that changes with religion or skin color. The burden of proof is on the side that wants to show someone is guilty. If we want rule of law in Iraq, shouldn't we provide a good example?

Also, i am showing about as much anti-muslim hatred as you are showing anti-christian hatred. You declare that all of this is done because we don't care to learn about their religion and I am saying basically the same thing on the other side of the coin, we have such huge problems because there's a large amount of people who don't care to learn about the other sides religion. Vent all your hatred of Americans that you want if you need to.

Does it not occur to you how silly this stuff sounds? How does parroting Ann Coulter et al. serve this discussion?

None of the arguments I've made about detention procedures have anything to do with religion. The guards or their charges could have any religion or none at all – as a matter of principle, I want prisoners to be treated humanely. And I don't believe this will happen if random reprisals by guards are tolerated in any way. Is this what you're calling "anti-Christian"?

I don't know what your real opinion of Islam or Muslims is. I do know that your statements about "these people" and their holy wars etc. are distorted, stock generalizations often used for expressing anti-Muslim sentiments. If such sentiments do not reflect your feelings, I would suggest not using such rhetoric; if you do use it, don't be surprised if you're viewed as prejudiced.

I'm not sure what the "all of this" might be that you say results from an unwillingness to learn about an unfamiliar religion on one side or the other. It's way too vague. And considering that I haven't been talking about religion and what might or might not be attributable to it, I have no idea where you're getting this from. Attributing opinions to me on topics I haven't been talking about is useful, how?

Looking at the arguments I've given, in so far as they relate to America rather than to more general prison issues, a summary of what I've said might run: inadequate planning has forced our military to put our soldiers into situations where their skills and training have been inadequate to allow them to uphold the standard of honor set for U.S. forces by George Washington. Is this what you're calling "anti-American"?

While you could just be writing sloppily, my impression is that you have very little notion of how I think, why I say things the way I do, and what your own rhetoric means. Without a real ground to work from, your trying to turn my words back on me is unlikely to do anything more than look foolish. I'm not saying this to be nasty, but just pointing out: you can snap back at me, but what does it really accomplish?

And again: do you know anything about the power dynamics I've been talking about, the social psychology results what I've been saying is based on? If not, this and this might be worth a look.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I understand to some degree where Penqwuino is coming from on this.

"Do precisely what is necessary to maintain order, no more."

This is very difficult. If some one gets out of hand not only does the situation need to be resolved as quickly as possible but you need to make sure that the prisoners don't feel they can get away with it. If you do only what is necessary to stop an incident you have done nothing to prevent it from happening again. All it takes is one individual who gets out of hand regularly with little to no punishment to get the others to start getting out of hand too. If the will to defy authority spreads among the prisoners the situation becomes rather volatile and unsafe for both the prisoners and the guards. In a prison you can't predict when these incidents will happen and prevent them. It's almost certain that they will happen and you will have to deal with them. I don't believe that these people have been handling the situation very well but I think a certain amount of problems with the guards and how they handle situations is to be expected as well.
Trying to maintain authority and not over step the bounds can be very difficult to accomplish. Personally I am a security guard. I think that I am a very levelheaded person and can keep my cool in stressful situations yet there has been at least one instance where I overstepped the bounds while dealing with an incredibly defiant individual. You have made several referances to the psychological situation of the prisoners and their lack of control over their environment but you don't seem to really take into account the situation of the guard. I'm sure that their situation is quite stressful and even if the military did put quite a bit of effort into training and screening the people who are simply going to be guarding prisoners there will still be those that make mistakes or just can't hack it.

 

[alexandra]

And if you can provide any evidence that these people were actually innocent (and not simply released on pressure from the international community), I would take to heart such an accusation.

Recent conversations have shown me that I don't know as much about the US as I thought I did. I was just wondering whether the USA's laws also follow the principle common to other western 'democratic' systems of 'innocent unless proven guilty'? Or is it the other way around?

 

[SOS2008]

That isn't good enough and you know it. ...Again, (same as in the recent discussion about debate tactics), you're trying to present a binary and equal burden-of-proof situation where none exists...

As stated before, there were many other reports by reliable sources documenting Bush’s failure to complete his service in the Guard, a couple of examples as follows:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040920/20guard.htm

9/20/04
The service question
A review of President Bush's Guard years raises issues about the time he served
By Kit R. Roane

But last week the controversy reared up once again, as several news outlets, including U.S. News, disclosed new information casting doubt on White House claims.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/

Bush fell short on duty at Guard
Records show pledges unmet
September 8, 2004

He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show. The 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The 1968 document has received scant notice.

Then there is the matter of the CBS memos, and questions as to the timing and method by which these were exposed, such as by the Free Republic (Buckhead’s post within a couple of hours) and FOX News, an example as follows:

We always favor looking at the content and substance over WHO is offering up the information, but in the war that will ensue about WHO gave CBS the potentially phony documents, it is interesting to Note that the right (Drudge, Fox, right-leaning blogs, others) led the way in pointing out the questions we have all been asking — and they were onto the questions, with remarkable detail, relatively soon after the documents were made public.

For more - http://mediamatters.org/items/200409100010

As well as the inability to prove the memos as not valid, an example provided as follows, this controversy remains: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/23/cbs.documents/index.html

Burkett: 'Jury still out' on memos CBS aired
From Ingrid Arnesen
CNN
Friday, September 24, 2004 Posted: 12:17 PM EDT (1617 GMT)
(CNN) -- Bill Burkett, who gave CBS News the alleged documents about President Bush's National Guard service, insists "the jury is still out" on whether those documents are authentic.

"The documents have not been conclusively proven false," Burkett said. "Neither have they been proven authentic. That jury is still out."

In conclusion, Dan Rather’s story was substantiated by other reports, the memos have never been proven false, and if there is a question regarding subversive activities, FOX News and other right-wing sources are just as suspect if not more.

Moving on to the matter of reports about Kerry’s military record, reports involved false documents, as follows:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth

Central to the SBVT media campaign has been a reliance on sworn affidavits to be provided as 'evidence' to journalists. However, Patrick Runyon, who provided a statement about the mission for which Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart, found the interest in his views to be more partisan than neutral. When his statement was returned for his signature, he told the New York Times, references to being fired on had been removed. “It made it sound like I didn't believe we got any returned fire … He made it sound like it was a normal operation. It was the scariest night of my life,” he said. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/p...t.html?ex=1094005334&ei=1&en=729916e83be2ab35)

Commander George Elliott—who praised Kerry's conduct during the Vietnam War—provided an affidavit criticizing Kerry for being awarded a Silver Star.
However, what appeared at first as a coup for them appeared to backfire when, on August 5, 2004, a Boston Globe article reported that Elliott had recanted his criticism of Kerry. The article quoted Elliott as saying, “It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here.” The affidavit states that the incident for which Kerry received the medal was actually shooting “a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.” Elliott said he felt “time pressure” to sign the affidavit “That's no excuse,” Elliott said, “I knew it was wrong. … In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.” (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/

Also the reports regarding their claims were found to be faulty, for example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html

Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete
Critics Fail to Disprove Kerry's Version of Vietnam War Episode
By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 22, 2004; Page A01

Furthermore, the Swift Boat Veterans were not a neutral, independent organization:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth/Complaint_to_the_FEC

In mid-August three campaign finance watchdog groups - Democracy 21, Campaign Legal Center, Center for Responsive Politics - filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission arguing that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were in breach of restrictions applying to 527 committees. (http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0811-03.htm)

The complaint argues SBVT, as a registered 527 committee, should be bound by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 requirements. While noting that SVBT is not registered as a ‘federal political committee’ the three groups argue that it should be. “SBVT is an entity which, as a 527 group, has a ‘major purpose,’ indeed an overriding purpose, to influence candidate elections, and more specifically, federal candidate elections, and which has spent, or is planning to spend, significant amounts of funds to influence the 2004 presidential election,” it stated.

The biased reporting by FOX News was blatant, and yet reporters such as Colmes and O’Reilly did not lose their jobs for reporting untrue stories (there are many examples, but here’s a couple):

Swift Boats Still Anchored on Fox
Friday's Fox News live with Alan Colmes (8/20-8/21) - This is a perfect example of how the media falls into the hands of the conservative spin machine. First, a group like the Swift Boat Vets comes up with a well-funded PR campaign. They go on TV and radio talk shows, especially the right-leaning ones and despite the fact that a lot of facts are not on their side, voila, they have a bona fide issue and a conversation.

The O'Reilly Factor. August 5, 2004. 8:12 PM to 8:19 PM EDT. FOX News aired the ENTIRE ad at the beginning of this interview and then for another two minutes showed it over and over silently during the discussion between O'Reilly and Morris. Despite O'Reilly's claim that the ad is "horribly exploitive", he gives it more FREE air time that the Swift Boat Vets could have hoped for in their wildest dreams.

Did Rather/CBS hope to subvert the election? One can speculate, and even if that was their intent, they did not succeed.

If we examine subversion of elections that have succeeded, we have only to look at Bush’s political track record. We can begin with his background. One in which his education is of question, his use of alcohol/drugs is of question, his business failure is of question up to the age of 40. Lacking any merit, we can look at his campaign techniques beginning with a bid for governorship. Then after serving for only five years as governor—a very brief political career—he runs for president in 2000. We all know the controversy of the 2000 election.

The ugly, polarizing tactics associated with Bush, and now the Republican party as a whole, the list of subversive behavior is so lengthy (talk about a post that would be infinite), suffice it to mention a few items--aside from the now obvious need for election reform--for example, the targeting of Democrat candidates, redistricting, use of religion (e.g., props to ban gay marriage), etc. to manipulate voter turn-out and to divert attention from legitimate issues, etc., etc., etc. Do you really believe Bush is the victim of anything?

BTW – This post is an example of making a case with sources in response to an unsubstantiated claim.

 

[plover]

"Do precisely what is necessary to maintain order, no more."

This is very difficult. If some one gets out of hand not only does the situation need to be resolved as quickly as possible but you need to make sure that the prisoners don't feel they can get away with it. If you do only what is necessary to stop an incident you have done nothing to prevent it from happening again.

It was in no way my intention to downplay the difficulties of these situations, and what you are saying here is included in what I meant by "maintain order".

All it takes is one individual who gets out of hand regularly with little to no punishment to get the others to start getting out of hand too. If the will to defy authority spreads among the prisoners the situation becomes rather volatile and unsafe for both the prisoners and the guards.

I agree with this also. The focus of my comments has been the flipside of this: that under a system where the rules are fuzzy enough to allow guards to take out their frustrations on prisoners or enact personal vendettas, they too will push the envelope of what they can get away with.

In a prison you can't predict when these incidents will happen and prevent them. It's almost certain that they will happen and you will have to deal with them. I don't believe that these people have been handling the situation very well but I think a certain amount of problems with the guards and how they handle situations is to be expected as well.

Yes, these situations are volatile, and the guards are, of course, human – and as with virtually every other human effort, perfection is extremely unlikely. My point is that all the evidence currently indicates that the professionalism of our military detention camps is often falling vastly short of what could be expected from appropriately trained personnel with clear guidelines.

Trying to maintain authority and not over step the bounds can be very difficult to accomplish. Personally I am a security guard. I think that I am a very levelheaded person and can keep my cool in stressful situations yet there has been at least one instance where I overstepped the bounds while dealing with an incredibly defiant individual. You have made several referances to the psychological situation of the prisoners and their lack of control over their environment but you don't seem to really take into account the situation of the guard. I'm sure that their situation is quite stressful and even if the military did put quite a bit of effort into training and screening the people who are simply going to be guarding prisoners there will still be those that make mistakes or just can't hack it.

The psychological dynamics I was talking about concern the guards as well as the prisoners. My purpose above was to object to a conception of these dynamics that seemed to allow far too much opportunity for authoritarian abuses, not to discount the stresses faced by guards. It sounds to me like you yourself most likely take your job seriously, have a clear concept of what is appropriate, and feel responsible for your actions – which is the better part of what is most important for dealing with these types of situations, no?

 

[russ_watters]

As stated before, there were many other reports by reliable sources documenting Bush’s failure to complete his service in the Guard, a couple of examples as follows:

...In conclusion, Dan Rather’s story was substantiated by other reports...

No! That is not correct. In the question of running the story or not running the story, the decision is made based on the new evidence in hand. The new evidence was what the story was about. It was not a story covering the overall picture of Bush's Guard Service, it was a story covering the new memos CBS had received.

If the story had been the story you are describing, then you'd be right - there would have been nothing wrong with it. But that was not the purpose of that 60 Minutes piece.

The burden of proof here was not the burden of proof for Bush's overall guard record, but the burden of proof for those specific memos. If those specific records cannot be positively authenticated - not 50% burden of proof, 95% burden of proof - then the story cannot run. That, sos, is why so many people lost their jobs over the story. They failed to authenticate the story before they ran it.

CBS isn't MoveONpac, SOS (or are they...?) they can't do what you are suggesting they can do. You're incorrectly characterizing the issue.

BTW – This post is an example of making a case with sources in response to an unsubstantiated claim.

Pffft - you're making a case that isn't at issue. Bush's overall guard service is irrelevant here. For what you posted about the specific memos, you posted a link to a quote by the guy who provided the memos. That Burkett thinks "the jury is still out" is irrelevant and its laughable that you would consider that "making a case". You're asking the accused if he's guilty - what do you think he's going to say?

For my part, no, I didn't provide any links in that post. Do you want some? Are there any specific facts you take issue with? I made the assumption that you were familiar with the facts of the issue: I assume that you are familiar with who MoveONpac (and the SBV) is, what they do, and where their money comes from. And I assume that you read CBS's report on the 60 Minutes story. I assumed you had read the memo written by the producer. If you don't already know this stuff...

However, here are some things you really aught to already know:
http://www.campaignaudit.org/articles/527democratsspendmore.html is where you can read about how the Democrats won the "soft money" battle in 2004.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/cbs_report.pdf is CBS's report on the 60 Minutes story.

http://www.frankpastore.com/runsheetarchives/runsheet-2005-01-10.html you can read quotes from Mapes that show her political motivation for pushing the story.

 

[stoned]

I'm starting to change my mind about Bush administration, they are friggin good players.
Looks like White House administration now proclaimed that America's miserably bad image in the Muslim world is entierly the fault of one or two lines that appeared in a Newsweek magazine story.
The administration has even more or less demanded that Newsweek fix it.
I conclusion the administration is doing everythig perfectly all the fault is in our free and too liberal media.

 

[Yonoz]

You have made several referances to the psychological situation of the prisoners and their lack of control over their environment but you don't seem to really take into account the situation of the guard.

No one ever does these days.

 

[2CentsWorth]

...In the question of running the story or not running the story, the decision is made based on the new evidence in hand...

The first attempt to stop the stories about Bush's service was the release of lies from the White House, but that did not stick. Then Bush support groups tried to diminish the story by focusing accusations on the opponent (Kerry), but that did not stick. So in the end, let's say the memos were forgeries. The question of where the memos originated remains. We are talking about an administration that has had pundits on the payroll as it were. The dirty politics and lies that we have seen can only make one suspect of everything during this administration.

 

[SOS2008]

...The new evidence was what the story was about. It was not a story covering the overall picture of Bush's Guard Service, it was a story covering the new memos CBS had received.

I disagree with your usual black and white view. The story was about new evidence in connection to Bush's failure to serve his full term in the Guard. It was about both.

With regard to your original claim, I quote myself:

It isn't okay for stories to be fabricated.

The story was not fabricated. Separate from this, I agree the memos needed to be valid to be used as evidence. However, it doesn’t help the case that the memos can’t be proven invalid either—I’m sure you’re familiar with the term “shadow of doubt.”

Returning to my point, once again I quote myself:

In the meantime, no one lost their job or had their careers affected for the stories about Kerry's military service. As a result, there was more negative affect on Kerry than on Bush, so how was the election subverted against Bush?

A price was paid by Rather and CBS because of the memos—even though the story itself was true. However, the same can’t be said in regard to false affidavits about Kerry’s service, which were the basis for a story that was also false. This is my case, and I have made it. If you can't see the difference, I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

Furthermore, not only is there hypocrisy in the matter, but also as a result of these two stories, the election was subverted in Bush’s direction. You can’t substantiate intent to subvert the election in Kerry’s favor anymore then I can substantiate that the memos were used as a set-up to subvert the election in Bush’s favor.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It was in no way my intention to downplay the difficulties of these situations, and what you are saying here is included in what I meant by "maintain order".

I was probably more wordy that necessary. I really only meant to point out that from the looks of it Pengwuino was arguing from the stand point of the guards and you from the stand point of the priosoners.
Thank you for the response.

 

[2CentsWorth]

There was a recent article about Newsweek and the hypocrisy of White House criticism of the media, which was in follow up to this blog article about CBS:

January 11, 2005| 6:30 p.m. ET, "Document flaps" (David Shuster):

...But as concerned as I am about the integrity and credibility of any news organization, I am far more concerned about the credibility of the United States. And to that end, CBS seems to have shown far more courage and accountability than our own government.

...Remember Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi opposition leader in exile who was paid millions of dollars by the Pentagon? He gave the civilian leaders at the Pentagon some documents that were allegedly from Iraqi scientists... documents that allegedly proved Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States. Chalabi also provided written testimony from Iraqis who claimed Saddam was close to completing a nuclear bomb.

Were the documents authenticated? Were the claims confirmed? The answer is "no." Because to do that kind of fact checking might have undermined the story line. Sound familiar?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6679533/

Also interesting are the results of a CNN poll conducted May 25, 2005:

Do you think the Bush White House is trying to control the media?

YES @ 94% (7,700)

NO @ 6% (478)

 

[Art]

A european perspective

Here's an interesting thought experiment regarding perspective
Imagine for a moment that Texas has a large percentage of the oil in the world. Then imagine that it has a corrupt government which is kept in power with the help of munitions and intelligence supplied by.. oh let's say France ... who in return for this support receives the oil they want to fuel their economy. In this very rich corrupt state of Texas the vast majority of the population are wretchedly poor and terrified of their government whilst the ruling elite amass more and more riches for themselves. Unfortunately (for them) the ruling elite get a little too big for their boots and no longer do as France tells them. France then decides they never really liked the Texan government anyway and so decide to invade Texas. As the Texans are none too fond of their own leaders they don't put up too spirited a fight in defense of them and so France has a bit of a cakewalk. Victorious France then tells the Texans "Hey we've saved you from those tyrants (that we supported for so many years) and we are even going to try some of them for killing a bunch of you with poisonous gas (which we supplied) so how about a big hand for Bonaparte?"
Now some Texans (remembering that we are still in Texas here) decides they have a big problem with Frenchmen occupying their country especially Frenchmen who had conspired with their former leaders to subjugate them and so start a guerilla campaign to drive out the invaders. France promptly declares these fighters to be terrorists (thus excepting them from the protection of the Geneva convention) and in their attempts to repel / attack them kill a whole load of Texan civilians in the process. This of course encourages other Texans to join the insurrection which brings us up to where we are now.
So if the above was the reality and the shoe really was on the other foot I wonder would Americans have a very different perspective on who is right and who is wrong in the middle east??
One thing I find peculiar when watching US television is that rarely if ever do Americans ask why people are trying to kill them. The message seems to be "Well they're terrorists and that's what terrorists do"
Do the American people already know why these 'terrorists' are trying to kill them and so it's not worth mentioning or do they just not care?
If US politicians were to consider that question seriously then perhaps foreign policy would change and Americans would no longer be the target of so much anger from so many. Or even after an evaluation process perhaps the US government would decide to maintain their current policy because they believe it is necessary to sustain their economy. At least then they could be honest to the American people and the rest of the world about their motivations like Hitler in 1939 who made no bones about the fact that he was going to invade his neighbours because "the German people need Living Room" Who knows?
Certainly it was a change in policy by the British government that led to peace with the IRA. After 25 years of trying to beat the IRA militarily finally a government came to power in Britain who asked the question why and actually began to understand why these people felt the need to try to kill them.
I realize this will not be a particularly popular view on this board but hey you guys are very proud of your constitution so I'm sure you all support free speech.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Victorious France then tells the Texans "Hey we've saved you from those tyrants (that we supported for so many years) and we are even going to try some of them for killing a bunch of you with poisonous gas (which we supplied) so how about a big hand for Bonaparte?"

The difference here is that Bonaparte is no longer in power. :-)

Certainly it was a change in policy by the British government that led to peace with the IRA.

Tensions are still high in Ireland. I'm not sure if you could chalk the reduction in violence up to policy or just a modern age where carrying out terrorist plots in technologically advanced countries is that much more difficult. From what I understand the brits have quite a few means of tracking potential terrorists. Hell the brits are the one that taught us the intelligence trade in the first place.

 

[Art]

The difference here is that Bonaparte is no longer in power. :-)


Tensions are still high in Ireland. I'm not sure if you could chalk the reduction in violence up to policy or just a modern age where carrying out terrorist plots in technologically advanced countries is that much more difficult. From what I understand the brits have quite a few means of tracking potential terrorists. Hell the brits are the one that taught us the intelligence trade in the first place.

The shift in policy lead directly to the Good Friday Agreement which lead directly to the IRA's ceasefire. As for difficulty in carrying out terrorist plots; the IRA suceeded in bombing the Conservative party conference when Thatcher was in power, landing mortar bombs in Major's back garden while he was in power and destroying the financial heart of London with a massive truck bomb.
During conflict both sides evolve in terms of capabilities and technology as in an arm's race. The danger is having set the race in motion you end up with a far more dangerous enemy than the one you started with.

 

[Burnsys]

"Hey we've saved you from those tyrants (that we supported for so many years) and we are even going to try some of them for killing a bunch of you with poisonous gas (which we supplied) so how about a big hand for Bonaparte?"

Well, the problem is that most americans seem to ignore that The us government and rumsfeld supported saddam even when he used chemical weapons, or at least they Prefer to ignore that... Becouse simply acknowlegding that results that the government didn't invade irak to liberate it's people from a tyrant, not even becouse iraq had weapons of mass destruction...

 

[Big Papa]

What you want when you want it.

Ther are two types of news reporters. One is like Dan Rather, Seriouse. The other is like Hunter S. Thomas, at the other end of the spectrum. Journalists, write because of the impact they themselves have on the world. If the story is 100% or 1% true they will write it, because it goes with their view. The point is not if the story was true or not. The point is it is the view point of one person who printed the story from one source. To these journalist's it does not matter what happens once the story breaks. Just printing the story is their art form. Seeing their name in print is like a musician creating music, or a painter creating a work of Art. They have ego's and want to be daredevils and push the evelope, until they finally get "called on the carpet for it." When they are held accountable, then the thrill of trying not to get caught is gone. They do this at a point in their careers like they are going through a mid-life crisis and want to go out with a big bang. The one thing they will be remembered for is not how good they were at reproting the facts like a high school geek. No, in their mind, they want to rebel and go out with that " wow, they had a lot of guts printing that fake story." Why did Hunter S. Thomas liw about the way he counducted interviews with Nixon? Why was it protrayed a totally different way in the Movie "where the Buffalo roam," staring Bill Murray, than what was Reported by Pat Buchanan in the Rolling Stone's tribute to the man? The reason is expressionism.

We may want all newsreporters to tel all of the truth. The deal is only if it's exciting will they expose the truth. When the truth is boring, then the exciting thing is the big pay check for reporting the boring truth. When the mid-lide crisis says," hey it's time for a change, let's do some daring reporting and see if we get caught." Then that's when yellow journalism comes in. The Spanish American war was trigger by the Hearst newspapers form of yellow journalism. Why would it change just because we are in the 21st century instead of the last two years of the 19th?

 

[Art]

I can't imagine why anybody would think that the nice US guards looking after the welfare of misguided miscreants abroad would desecrate a holy book. Okay, they may torture prisoners, subject them to extreme sexual abuse and even beat them to death but desecrate a book? The very idea is shocking. Besides even if they did it's not their fault that it provoked outrage amongst muslim populations, it's that damn liberal press' fault for publishing the details.
I think the above sums up the republicans' attitude to this debate.
Guess we'll just have to wait for the photos to be published to see if it's true or not.

 

[Burnsys]

Why do they hate us?

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/why01.html

 

[Informal Logic]

I can't imagine why anybody would think that the nice US guards looking after the welfare of misguided miscreants abroad would desecrate a holy book. Okay, they may torture prisoners, subject them to extreme sexual abuse and even beat them to death but desecrate a book? The very idea is shocking. Besides even if they did it's not their fault that it provoked outrage amongst muslim populations, it's that damn liberal press' fault for publishing the details.

I think the above sums up the republicans' attitude to this debate.
Guess we'll just have to wait for the photos to be published to see if it's true or not.

I was watching a recent interview of Cheney on this topic. The majority of his remarks consisted of a rant about how much America has been doing to provide peace/freedom/democracy in the world, most notably Afghanistan and Iraq, so how dare people question America. More frigging propaganda from 'la-la land' instead of addressing the topic at hand.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8046041/

Now we have Bush out front on this, and I couldn't help but wonder if Bush Sr. ever told him the story about "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." Even if Amnesty's claims are "absurd" the problem is no one believes anything that comes out of Bush's mouth anymore anyway.

 

[faust9]

With every passing day, it looks as if the newsweek story was true; however the Bush admin wanted to scape-goat the media for its (Bush's not the media's) failings. Newsweek did not cause the riot. Gitmo caused the riot. Abu Graib caused the riot. The war in Iraq for fictious weapons resulting in ten thousand deaths in 18 months caused the riot. An overzeleous political figure in Pakistan with a bone to pick with US and Musharraf policies caused the riot. It's a sad sad sad day when so many American sheep are so easily hearded by the demogogues running the asylum right now. "Cast no aspersions on Lord Bush his holyness you foul foul liberals!" We all know you are either with Bush or from Mass. right?

Anywho, here's a linky-linky for those who have to come across its like yet. Enjoy.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/03/guantanamo.quran.ap/index.html

 

[Informal Logic]

I don't know why the American people continue to tolerate the lies from the White House, and the people in it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8090656/

Pentagon details mishandling of Quran
Detainees’ copies of holy book kicked, splashed with urine

The Associated Press
Updated: 11:13 p.m. ET June 3, 2005

A Pentagon report detailing incidents of mishandling of the Quran by U.S. guards at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, comes after the White House last month blamed deadly anti-American riots in the Middle East on a Newsweek report about alleged abuse of the Quran. The magazine later retracted its story.

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/03/pzn.01.html

Aired June 3, 2005 - 20:00 ET

ZAHN: Breaking news out of Washington. The developing story we're following tonight. The U.S. military says that an investigation has confirmed the mistreatment or mishandling of Korans at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba.

That investigation was the result of a report later retracted by "Newsweek" magazine that a Koran at Gitmo was flushed down a toilet. That report sparked worldwide outrage thanks to a media savvy Pakistani lawmaker who is gaining worldwide attention.

KHAN: The problem is when you make it a war against Islam rather than terror, then you help terrorists. At fringes of society, the fanatics, you help them, who are not scared of dying.

ZAHN (on camera): But they said that hate and anger has been there for centuries and will never go away.

KHAN: This is such nonsense. Look, if people didn't -- if there was such hatred against the U.S., then people wouldn't be dying to come to the U.S. I mean, it's, you know, if you open up the visas, probably a lot of them would turn up here. So it's not obviously that, you know, there is no problem with the people of U.S.

ZAHN (voice-over): According to Khan, for most Muslims there is no problem with the American people. But there is a problem, he says, with U.S. foreign policy.

KHAN: When you deal with terrorists who you think are terrorists, why humiliate them, according to their culture or their religion? Why humiliate them, you know? This whole issue of Koran, or before that a woman soldier with naked prisoners, or shaving their beards off, because then that whole thing is perceived not a war against terror, but a war against Islam. And when you -- and that's what the terrorists want, because then they get more recruits. It's a never-ending war.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Imran Khan is now back in Pakistan. He continues to urge his fellow Pakistanis not to hate the American people, but to protest U.S. policies that are offensive to the Muslim faith. And, again, the Pentagon confirming tonight after office hours that an investigation has confirmed that incidents of mishandling the Koran at Guantanamo Bay have happened.