My Photo

February 2006

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28        

What I Read in the Waiting Room of Hell


From the Tongues of Angels

Search And Destroy

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 02/2005

« Dick Vader Wants to Succeed Emperor in 2008 | Main | GEORGE BUSH MAY BE TOUGH BUT . . . »

May 16, 2005


NeoCon Crusher

Condoleezza Rice said the story has "done a lot of harm" to U.S. efforts to reach out to the Muslim world.

Uh, Condi....Invading a Muslim Country with no Just reason, detaining enemy combatants at GITMO with no due process, and torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib is what REALLY harmed US "efforts" to reach out to the Muslim World.

What "efforts" has the US made so far? Bombing/invading Afghanistan and bombing/invading Iraq? Is this "reaching out"?

Mentis Fugit

Quoth The Heretik: the story of disrespect for other people's religions behind this story has MULTIPLE SOURCES beyond the damaged Newsweek story

See This Modern World for four examples of those sources.

Mentis Fugit

Oops - the direct link to the article seems to be on the fritz. Look for the post headed "Before the righties claim another scalp".

The Heretik

Thanks, Fugit, for the link. Prop to you on the pointer. Crush, you are on point as ever.


They shot Dan Rather and now they are shooting Newsweek. The conservatives will use this to go after the entire "liberal media" since Newsweek is owned by the Washington Post Company. I can't take much more of this shit.

Jaye Ramsey Sutter

I took a nap this afternoon and all hell broke loose when I was asleep. I don't get this story. Newsweek reported something that everyone knew, some people who hate every other book on the planet got upset and had a riot over a book, but they don't riot when their family members are killed by the friendly U.S. troops?

We went to war over a lie, but Newsweek is the anti-Christ because they stirred up people who don't read anything that resembles Newsweek--do they buy it off the rack or subscribe?--but Newsweek is evil because they reported the truth, but the war is a lie?

Please help me out on this. Which meds can I take to make this go away?

Everyone get out their copy of All the President's Men and watch what a quant and charming little story it was.


You said it, Joe. We have the White House Press secretary blaming Newsweek for the violence that ensued. What about the religious zealots who actually incited the violence? Isn't it kinda their fault, mostly? Entirely?

You know, not that I condone flushing the Koran down a toilet, but if it happens, the responsibility for any riots rests not so much with the person who reported the story as with the person who started the riot. Obvious, right?

Just like if Newsweek reported on the White House's current attempts to flush the First Amendment down the toilet: If I get pissed off enough to throw my computer off the balcony, I wouldn't expect them to pay for it. Maybe the White House, but not Newsweek.

Steve Bates

What Could Be Stranger Than Going Back to Newsweek to See They Haven't Really Retracted this Story At All. - The Heretik

Thanks, Heretik; that's a much-needed reminder. I read the Newsweek statement, and realized that "retraction" is a completely inappropriate word for it. They had one government source saying it happened, two Defense sources not denying it, and considerable evidence over the past couple of years that similar things have happened, so they went to press with it. So what if the original government source isn't so sure now? Everything points to the truth of the original story.

I see the prints of Karl Rove all over this. Hey, it worked for him with Dan Rather and the Bush military service document; why should he not try it again. And he gets three-for-one: not only is the Qu'ran desecration story discredited, not only is Newsweek embarrassed, but the Blair "smoking gun" memo is out of the top headlines for a while. Mark my word: this is Rove's work.

The comments to this entry are closed.