Newsweek F*cks America...

[SilverNRed]

Allegations.

 

ALLEGATIONS.

 

Unsubstantiated and unconfirmed allegations, not facts, are what Newsweek and their liberal ilk are reporting and it's irresponsible, no matter how you try to spin it.

339359[/snapback]

Of course, we've also found Al Qaeda training manuals that instruct the "mujahadeen" to claim prison abuses as soon as they're released regardless of whether it happened or not.

 

They understand our media will take any opportunity to smear our military and they understand that there is a large segment of America's population that will buy it - hook, line, and sinker.

[Alaska Darin]

Of course, we've also found Al Qaeda training manuals that instruct the "mujahadeen" to claim prison abuses as soon as they're released regardless of whether it happened or not.

 

They understand our media will take any opportunity to smear our military and they understand that there is a large segment of America's population that will buy it - hook, line, and sinker.

339414[/snapback]

Gee, that really happens?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Gee, that really happens?   

339432[/snapback]

 

I"m not a cheerleader for the government by any stretch. But I really do believe that the media has an out and out vendetta with this administration and will do whatever they can to change the focus of the American public to suit their agenda.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The FBI reported previously about abuses at Gitmo, and a former soldier stationed there has described seeing tactics used to shame Muslims, especially by female soldiers, so the latest claim just fits the pattern.  Now go ahead with the pattern here and attack the messenger because you don't like the message.

339341[/snapback]

 

Dumbass. I was honestly inquiring whether or not you were confusing Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, as it wasn't clear if you were confusing the two or using Abu Ghraib as an analogy. So don't jump down my !@#$ing throat and B word about ad hominem attacks because I politely ask you to clarify a point so I can make a reasonable attempt at responding to it. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

[PastaJoe]

Dumbass.  I was honestly inquiring whether or not you were confusing Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, as it wasn't clear if you were confusing the two or using Abu Ghraib as an analogy.  So don't jump down my !@#$ing throat and B word about ad hominem attacks because I politely ask you to clarify a point so I can make a reasonable attempt at responding to it.  :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

339497[/snapback]

 

A civilized conversation. How refreshing.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

A civilized conversation.  How refreshing. 

339549[/snapback]

 

Well, then next time someone asks you to clarify a point so they can discuss something with you, don't rip their !@#$ing head off, you idiot.

[PastaJoe]

Now go ahead with the pattern here and attack the messenger because you don't like the message.

 

If you think this generic statement was "jumping down your throat", then I apologize. I was prepared to be attacked for using a "stupid analogy" or "lahjikal" leaps of faith, as often happens to people here who disagree. But I think your excessive use of namecalling was uncalled for.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

But I think your excessive use of namecalling was uncalled for.

340114[/snapback]

 

Conversely, I think you're a brain-dead idiot who jumps to conclusions so quickly and is so ready to assume insult that you're not even capable of having a rational discussion on any topic without degenerating it to some overly rhetorical equivalent of "Yo' mama!"

 

So we'll just have to agree to disagree...

[ExiledInIllinois]

Follow with me class.

 

You do something bad somewhere else... It follows with you. It is called CREDIBILITY. To build that CREDIBILITY up you have to be ACCOUNTABLE for your actions. Unfortunately, people aren't buying. But, feel free to whine about Newsweek. We made our bed a long time ago. Seems we are being profiled?

 

Right now America's credibility is low. Is there any doubt that this incident DIDN'T take place?

 

I know a lot of you out there wake up every morning thinking it is a "brand new day"... So what if yesterday was a bad... By God, we will have a better day today... It is all good!

 

Sign me up for some of that lemonade! Talk about signing Kumbaya?

 

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Follow with me class.

 

You do something bad somewhere else... It follows with you.  It is called CREDIBILITY.  To build that CREDIBILITY up you have to be ACCOUNTABLE for your actions.  Unfortunately, people aren't buying.  But, feel free to whine about Newsweek.  We made our bed a long time ago.  Seems we are being profiled?

 

Right now America's credibility is low.  Is there any doubt that this incident DIDN'T take place?

 

I know a lot of you out there wake up every morning thinking it is a "brand new day"... So what if yesterday was a bad... By God, we will have a better day today... It is all good!

 

Sign me up for some of that lemonade!  Talk about signing Kumbaya?

 

 

340398[/snapback]

 

I whine about Newsweek because they ran a single-sourced story without doing any meaningful investigation into its veracity. Just like people whine about the administration going to war over a single-sourced story without doing any meaningful investingation into its veracity. Why is it okay when Newsweek does it, but not the government?

 

And don't give me that "because people died when the government did it" line, either. People died over Newsweek's bull sh--.

[Alaska Darin]

Right now America's credibility is low.  Is there any doubt that this incident DIDN'T take place?

340398[/snapback]

Gee, that's not mostly because of the way our unbalanced media reports things to the lemmings and the corresponding inability to understand anything beyond the possibility that "The Amazing Race" may have been fixed...

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

Gee, that's not mostly because of the way our unbalanced media reports things to the lemmings and the corresponding inability to understand anything beyond the possibility that "The Amazing Race" may have been fixed...

 

340441[/snapback]

 

 

Did you ever stop and think the problem is in your thinking?

 

"Naaaaa... It is always someone else's fault. All fine here."

 

AD=Right, Everybody else=Bad!

 

[Reuben Gant]

I whine about Newsweek because they ran a single-sourced story without doing any meaningful investigation into its veracity.  Just like people whine about the administration going to war over a single-sourced story without doing any meaningful investingation into its veracity.  Why is it okay when Newsweek does it, but not the government?

 

And don't give me that "because people died when the government did it" line, either.  People died over Newsweek's bull sh--.

340430[/snapback]

I think it goes something like this:

Newsweek is accountable only to its readers.

The government is acountable to you and me.

 

I don't read Newsweek.

But wasn't something like this inevitable? If it wasn't Newsweek,

don't you think there would have been some other justification.

I tend to think that people would have gotten killed anyway, because

there are people organizing these type of things that are looking

for trigger events to incite violence. The fact it was Newsweek,

apart from being poor journalism, is, I think indifferent to the

total state of affairs.

[PastaJoe]

I whine about Newsweek because they ran a single-sourced story without doing any meaningful investigation into its veracity.  Just like people whine about the administration going to war over a single-sourced story without doing any meaningful investingation into its veracity.  Why is it okay when Newsweek does it, but not the government?

 

And don't give me that "because people died when the government did it" line, either.  People died over Newsweek's bull sh--.

340430[/snapback]

 

The Newsweek story was the equivilent of throwing another log on an already burning bonfire. It didn't start the fire, it just added some fuel. The administration is acting like everything was going great before Newsweek screwed it up. Pot meet kettle.

[Alaska Darin]

Did you ever stop and think the problem is in your thinking?

 

"Naaaaa... It is always someone else's fault.  All fine here."

 

340445[/snapback]

Yeah, that's always been my contention. [/sarcasm]

 

Now start another post as if you're capable of actually teaching other people something.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Yeah, that's always been my contention.  [/sarcasm]

 

Now start another post as if you're capable of actually teaching other people something. 

340461[/snapback]

 

 

You still don't get it?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The Newsweek story was the equivilent of throwing another log on an already burning bonfire.  It didn't start the fire, it just added some fuel.  The administration is acting like everything was going great before Newsweek screwed it up.  Pot meet kettle.

340451[/snapback]

 

The Newsweek story was irresponsible journalism, by Newsweek's own admission.

 

I can't believe so many people are willing to say "Well, that's okay, because they were reporting on something that's related to something else that's fundamentally !@#$ed up, anyway." Is Newsweek REALLY that blameless for their own piss-poor reporting?

[SilverNRed]

The Newsweek story was the equivilent of throwing another log on an already burning bonfire.  It didn't start the fire, it just added some fuel.  The administration is acting like everything was going great before Newsweek screwed it up.  Pot meet kettle.

340451[/snapback]

The "already burning bonfire" of our wonderful mainstream media giving more credence to the words of terrorists than our own military and government? You're right, what *is* the big deal? They do this all the time anyway! They'll be doing it again next week. Now would be a good time for all of us to get used to it.

 

I don't remember the NYT, LA Times, Newsweek, CBS, ABC, CNN, or NBC lining up to shine the light on the incredibly faulty methodology behind the 'study' released last November that claimed 100,000 Iraqi civilians had died since the start of the Iraq War. They just let that one slide and we still have idiots - including people on this message board and even that nutty Scot George Galloway just this week - who cite that study as Gospel. Anything that negative towards this administration and towards our military must be true - and if it isn't, it's "fake but accurate" (our media's new rallying cry).

[Alaska Darin]

 

 

You still don't get it?

340479[/snapback]

You'll have to excuse me for not being able to read the cube in that magic 8 ball head of yours. I'm not fluent in babbling dufus.

[Alaska Darin]

The "already burning bonfire" of our wonderful mainstream media giving more credence to the words of terrorists than our own military and government? 

340524[/snapback]

They're just "supporting the troops" in their own special way. Buy a bumper sticker! Step right up!

[ExiledInIllinois]

You'll have to excuse me for not being able to read the cube in that magic 8 ball head of yours.  I'm not fluent in babbling dufus. 

340526[/snapback]

 

 

AD, I live for your comments like these!

 

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I'm not fluent in babbling dufus. 

340526[/snapback]

 

You do okay, though...

 

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

They're just "supporting the troops" in their own special way.  Buy a bumper sticker!  Step right up!

340531[/snapback]

 

 

Quite a conundrum that "supporting the troops" thingy is?

[ExiledInIllinois]

You do okay, though... 

340539[/snapback]

 

 

Actually, you are better! I see more common ground with you... What does that mean?

 

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Actually, you are better!  I see more common ground with you... What does that mean?

 

340541[/snapback]

 

Means you sit here and throw crap at everyone, just like me.

 

Personally, I wouldn't see that as necessarily flattering...

[ExiledInIllinois]

Means you sit here and throw crap at everyone, just like me. 

 

Personally, I wouldn't see that as necessarily flattering...

340549[/snapback]

 

But, YOU find it flattering?

 

You are still a "supercilious anal office!"

 

[IDBillzFan]

Follow with me class.

 

You do something bad somewhere else... It follows with you.  It is called CREDIBILITY.  To build that CREDIBILITY up you have to be ACCOUNTABLE for your actions.  Unfortunately, people aren't buying.  But, feel free to whine about Newsweek.  We made our bed a long time ago.  Seems we are being profiled?

 

Right now America's credibility is low.  Is there any doubt that this incident DIDN'T take place?

 

I know a lot of you out there wake up every morning thinking it is a "brand new day"... So what if yesterday was a bad... By God, we will have a better day today... It is all good!

 

Sign me up for some of that lemonade!  Talk about signing Kumbaya?

 

 

340398[/snapback]

Sorry to be jumping into this fray so late, but you seem to be saying our credibility is low and we need to account for ourselves, but Newsweek isn't the problem, even though Newsweek is directly responsible for the death of at least 15 people directly because they fumbled their credibility and ultimately refuse to account for themselves.

 

The act of flushing the book didn't kill those people. The unsubstantiated, unproven, irresponsible Newsweek article is responsible for killing those people. But you seem to think it's okay if NEWSWEEK does this so long as no one else does it.

 

Do you always contradict yourself in your own statements, or did I just stumble into Schizophrenic Forest by mistake?

[ExiledInIllinois]

Sorry to be jumping into this fray so late, but you seem to be saying our credibility is low and we need to account for ourselves, but Newsweek isn't the problem, even though Newsweek is directly responsible for the death of at least 15 people directly because they fumbled their credibility and ultimately refuse to account for themselves.

 

The act of flushing the book didn't kill those people. The unsubstantiated, unproven, irresponsible Newsweek article is responsible for killing those people. But you seem to think it's okay if NEWSWEEK does this so long as no one else does it.

 

Do you always contradict yourself in your own statements, or did I just stumble into Schizophrenic Forest by mistake?

340577[/snapback]

 

Vexing questions no doubt LA!

 

We should ALL ask those questions.

[PastaJoe]

The Newsweek story was irresponsible journalism, by Newsweek's own admission. 

 

I can't believe so many people are willing to say "Well, that's okay, because they were reporting on something that's related to something else that's fundamentally !@#$ed up, anyway."  Is Newsweek REALLY that blameless for their own piss-poor reporting?

340495[/snapback]

 

Has anybody said they're blameless for not getting more than one source? I'm concerned about how it might have a chilling effect on future reporting. But it is nowhere near as irresponsible as the mistakes and misrepresentations made by the administration that initiated the invasion of Iraq, and the handling of the occupation afterward.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Has anybody said they're blameless for not getting more than one source?  I'm concerned about how it might have a chilling effect on future reporting.  But it is nowhere near as irresponsible as the mistakes and misrepresentations made by the administration that initiated the invasion of Iraq, and the handling of the occupation afterward.

340583[/snapback]

 

Aaaaa. No.

 

Shhhh, but don't make that known.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

...mistakes and misrepresentations made by the administration...and the handling of the occupation afterward.

340583[/snapback]

 

Oh, please share your wisdom...what mistakes would these be?

[Campy]

<snip> is directly responsible for the death of at least 15 people directly because they fumbled their credibility and ultimately refuse to account for themselves.

340577[/snapback]

Interestingly, if you throw a few zeros onto the end of that number it sounds a lot like the United States' foreign policy.

 

 

 

Newsweek doesn't kill people, people kill people.

[Kelly the Dog]

Sorry to be jumping into this fray so late, but you seem to be saying our credibility is low and we need to account for ourselves, but Newsweek isn't the problem, even though Newsweek is directly responsible for the death of at least 15 people directly because they fumbled their credibility and ultimately refuse to account for themselves.

 

The act of flushing the book didn't kill those people. The unsubstantiated, unproven, irresponsible Newsweek article is responsible for killing those people. But you seem to think it's okay if NEWSWEEK does this so long as no one else does it.

 

Do you always contradict yourself in your own statements, or did I just stumble into Schizophrenic Forest by mistake?

340577[/snapback]

What if two respected members of the military or Bush Administration had both said, in confidence, that the incident occured, and this wasn't at all sloppy journalism. Would Newsweek still be completely responsible for 15 people dying?

[Thurman's Helmet]

How about instead of jumping ugly on each other pointing fingers at either Newsweek or the Bush admin, we actually look at the real root cause of this, the fact that there are bloodthirsty thugs out there ready to take to the streets and riot at the mere mention of a holy book being desecrated ANYWHERE in the world.

 

Interesting Op-ed piece in the Boston Globe by Jeff Jacoby

 

The Muslim riots should have been met by outrage and condemnation. From every part of the civilized world should have come denunciations of those who would react to the supposed destruction of a book with brutal threats and the slaughter of 17 innocent people. But the chorus of condemnation was directed not at the killers and the fanatics who incited them, but at Newsweek.

 

From the White House down, the magazine was slammed -- for running an item it should have known might prove incendiary, for relying on a shaky source, for its animus toward the military and the war. Over and over, Newsweek was blamed for the riots' death toll. Conservative pundits in particular piled on. ''Newsweek lied, people died" was the headline on Michelle Malkin's popular website. At NationalReview.com, Paul Marshall of Freedom House fumed: ''What planet do these [Newsweek] people live on? . . . Anybody with a little knowledge could have told them it was likely that people would die as a result of the article." All of Marshall's choler was reserved for Newsweek; he had no criticism at all for the marauders in the Muslim street.

 

Then there was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who announced at a Senate hearing that she had a message for ''Muslims in America and throughout the world." And what was that message? That decent people do not resort to murder just because someone has offended their religious sensibilities? That the primitive bloodlust raging in Afghanistan and Pakistan was evidence of the Muslim world's dysfunctional political culture?

 

No: Her message was that ''disrespect for the Holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States."

 

[IDBillzFan]

What if two respected members of the military or Bush Administration had both said, in confidence, that the incident occured, and this wasn't at all sloppy journalism. Would Newsweek still be completely responsible for 15 people dying?

340669[/snapback]

We could spend all day discussing hypotheticals, and I don't care for hypotheticals because they are never indicative of reality. Your hypothetical assumes the event did happen. No evidence is there to suggest it DID happen, and Newsweek tripped over it's own irresponsibilities to report something that had no basis for truth. Even if we both believe it DID happen, the reality is there is still no basis for truth.

 

That said, if Newsweek quoted two respected members of the military or the Bush Administration and did the responsible thing by putting their names, titles, rank, etc. in their article, then it would be hard to fault Newsweek for the events.

 

But again, that is not what happened. We may as well discuss "if OJ was found at the scene of Nicole's dead body with her blood all over his shirt and a knife in his hand, would you say he was guilty?"

 

That's why hypotheticals are worthless to me unless you're in the planning stages of something. If you're looking backwards, what's the sense except to pass time?

 

At this juncture it doesn't really matter, anyway, because nothing will come of this except journalists everywhere now know they can report stories with no basis in fact, have that story be the direct cause of the death of 15 people, and have no repercussions whatsoever except to retract a story the American Idol crowd has already forgotten because it's not an interactive story that involves voting from their cellphone.

[Reuben Gant]

Interestingly, if you throw a few zeros onto the end of that number it sounds a lot like the United States' foreign policy.

Newsweek doesn't kill people, people kill people.

340614[/snapback]

Or in this case: people who probably can't read Newsweek, kill people.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Interestingly, if you throw a few zeros onto the end of that number it sounds a lot like the United States' foreign policy.

Newsweek doesn't kill people, people kill people.

340614[/snapback]

 

Is there a telephone somewhere here?

 

[Chilly]

They're just "supporting the troops" in their own special way.  Buy a bumper sticker!  Step right up!

340531[/snapback]

 

I'll buy one as long as I can remove it from my car and use it as a free "dodge the draft in Canada" pass across the border.

 

[UConn James]

The act of flushing the book didn't kill those people. The unsubstantiated, unproven, irresponsible Newsweek article is responsible for killing those people. But you seem to think it's okay if NEWSWEEK does this so long as no one else does it.

340577[/snapback]

 

Actually, it was the bullets and beatings delivered by fellow Afghanis/Uzbeks that is responsible for killing those people.

 

The photos of Saddam in his underwear published yesterday.... Pres. Bush said, "I don't think it's a photo that will cause people to murder."

 

Now, replace the word 'photo' in that sentence with 'word.' If that's the sense he was trying to get at, I wholly agree with him. But, either he's going counter to what Scott McClellan and the rest of the media/PR circus is spouting about, or it's another case of "Do as I say, not as I do." Yet another example of the foot-in-mouth disease that's spreading so rapidly.

[blzrul]

So, since a 10-line article in Newsweek (which elicited no comment from the White House at all until a couple of riots happened) is such a big deal, how about the photos of Saddam in his briefs? Way to go US military - take the photos if you must, but leaking them to the press doesn't do much for our image or credibility. Of the Sun's publishing them...well the Sun is a rag, what can I say. But I doubt the military leaked the photos believing they wouldn't appear in the media somewhere, somehow.