Newsweek's Source

In an update, Michelle Malkin prints a denial from the publisher that Erik Saar was the source for the "Newsweek lied" story.  Let's toss in a bit of supporting evidence from the NY Times:

Erik Saar, a co-author of the book "Inside the Wire" and an Arabic language translator at Guantánamo from January to June 2003, said in an interview Monday that while he "never saw anything along the lines of a Koran being flushed down a toilet," the issue of how guards and interrogators handled the book was a chronic problem.

OK.  Now, this part of the Times story can be taken as support of view that the toilet-desecration did not happen (but it takes a bit of imagination, so I may lose lefties here):

Last month, a former American interrogator confirmed to The New York Times an account given in an interview by a former Kuwaiti detainee, Nasser Nijer Naser al-Mutairi, who said that mishandling of the Koran once led to a major hunger strike. The strike ended only after a senior officer expressed regret over the camp's loudspeaker system, which was simultaneously translated by linguists at the end of each cell block, the former interrogator said.

In that case, the accusations were of copies of the Koran being tossed on the floor in a pile and treated roughly, but there was no assertion that any had been put in the toilet.

Think about the dog that did not bark in the night and riddle me this - if the detainees would stage a "major hunger strike" because a Koran was tossed in a pile on the floor, why would they not stage something that dramatic and memorable if a Koran were flushed down a toilet? 

"On the floor - strike!"  "Down the bowl - no problem."  I don't think so.

Comments

[creepy dude]

Hey TM-you're a sharp dude and seem to possess insights into how Republican "minds" operate.

I see Malkin, Hewitt, and the usual ne'er write-wells are calling for Newsweek to name its source. If they are correct-tell me again why Novak, Miller, and Cooper shouldn't?

[Appalled Moderate]

Hey dude.

OK, here's one for you. Should there be a special prosecutor appointed to ferret out the source who is the cause of the bad story? He very well might have been leaking classified information, which I believe does carry jail time.

[creepy dude]

Most definitely AM-especially since it appears (per Howard Fineman) the source is a senior government official.

Now answer my question.

[creepy dude]

Of course, just as in Plame, the Administration could reveal Newsweek's source on it's own, but Hewitt, Malkin, and their ilk prefer to bash Newsweek. So be it.

[byrd]

Hey CD, do you have special information about what the administration knows about the leakers in these two cases?

If so, please share. Or do you have a website I can go to to read about it?

[creepy dude]

Byrd-you really believe Bush couldn't find out who talked to Newsweek without getting a special prosecutor appointed? If Bush is that weak, it's even worse than I thought.

Meanwhile-both you and AM have answered my question with questions. Just give it a shot, please. I have a devastating followup but I need a conservative simpleton to play along.

[Appalled Moderate]

Dude.

I don't think reporters should be forced to give up sources, so I'm not the right guy to play patsy.

I applaud you on your consistancy. Most folks would have seen distinctions or chosen to surf elsewhere until things calmed down.

[creepy dude]

Good AM-I'll take that as your acknowledgment that Hewitt, Malkin etc. had their brains flushed down a toilet long ago.

Meanwhile, I don't really have a followup. I'm just trying to taunt a response out of some cowardly confused cuckolded conservative.

[BumperStickerist]

hmmm .. creepydude: a nattering nabob of numbnuttery

{note: just trying to keep the comment section here up to Dreznerian standards}

[Appalled Moderate]

I'm not a fan of either one -- and Malkin's Newsweek Lied* (sorta kinda, well not really but I'm having fun with the slogan) schtick is not honest. I cannot speak for the current location of their little grey cells and refuse to comment on the matter. I don't know where mine are half the time.

[TexasToast]

Seems to me the same folks said that no republican staffer would be stupid enough to pass around "talking points" about how Terri S would "fire up the base" - so it had to be a lie ....

[creepy dude]

The Wingnut Choir grows screechier. From NRO:

"RE: LEAKER [K. J. Lopez]
Hugh Hewitt wants Congress involved if Newsweek doesn't name names.
Posted at 03:44 PM (12:44 TM time)"

Now tell me again why the White House can't get involved???

Who is stupider-the people who write, read, or believe this inanity?

[creepy dude]

Luckily for Isikoff he can take Cooper's master brief re: journalistic privilege and just find and replace the names.

What am I missing.

TT-you're astute. Repubs are going to overpress in this investigation and get bit in the butt a la poor Ms. Schiavo memo affair. Investigations only make the light shine-something the Bush cockroach crowd studiously avoids.

[creepy dude]

They're really going for it! Now Lowry who has written more dishonest article castigating the Plame investigation than anyone invokes it:

"RE THE LEAKER [Rich Lowry ]
I'm not under any illusions that he will be found, given that leak investigations almost always come up empty. But let's at least expend a fraction of the energy that has been devoted to trying to find the Plame leaker. The Isikoff leaker has helped do actual damage...
Posted at 04:00 PM (1:00 p.m. TM time)"

Astounding. Can someone hack into whatever mind control waves are beamed into their pea-brains and tell them they're calling for an investigation of the Administration!

[creepy dude]

You still out there AM?-the conservatives took your suggestion and ran with it! Why they think little old liberals like me won't egg them on is beyond me.

[creepy dude]

Yes. I hereby join National Review in its call for an investigation into the criminal leaks from the Bush White House.

My first comment on this thread was an attempt to argue some conservative into this position. Lo and behold they did it all by themselves.

My work here is done.

[Appalled Moderate]

Jeepers! I have been tricked into mind-melding with the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, forcing them to call for an investigation that will be Spectacularly Unproductive and result in their Hubristic Collapse! Curses!! This is creepy, dude...

[Sweetie]

"you really believe Bush couldn't find out who talked to Newsweek without getting a special prosecutor appointed? If Bush is that weak, it's even worse than I thought."

Creepy Dude,

Pro torture, huh? That is creepy.

[TM]

I have a devastating followup but I need a conservative simpleton to play along.

Sorry, wrong site. I stood tall against Hugh Hewitt's call for a Congressional look at Rathergate (and he was a very good sport about it), and only yesterday I said that (subject to reflection and arm-twisting) a Congressional investigation into Newsweek would be a mistake.

Anyway, where did Fineman characterize Newsweek's source - was that at Malkin's site, from the Imus interview?

[creepy dude]

Bully for you then TM.

From the Imus interview, as quoted on Malcontentkin's site:

"But what happened is, that Mike Isikoff, the last thing Mike is, is lazy. A very diligent, very experienced reporter. Who by the way is not a kid trying to break in and score here. He's not on a holy mission of any kind. He's just trying to report what's going on, got in contact with a senior government official with whom he had dealt before and who was reliable in the past and who was in a position to know what investigations were going on about acts at Guantanamo."

[TM]

My connection has dropped me twice in five minutes, but third time lucky - there are big differences amongst "White House official", Senior Admin official", and "seniot government official". Newsweek's source could be a career civil servant somewhere, but they are not saying he is in the "criminal Bush White House".

Irish, it looks like your devastating rebuttal was a suicide bomb.

[Josh Marshall noted the differences in one of his Plamectomies, and I excerpted it earlier today].

[creepy dude]

Not at all TM-I create my own reality. Learned it from the Bush crowd. Try it sometime.

Meanwhile-time to give Hewitt his meds again.

[Cecil Turner]

"If they are correct-tell me again why Novak, Miller, and Cooper shouldn't?"

Don't look at me, last time we had this conversation, one of our few points of agreement was that they should. (I just don't think you'd be all that happy with the result.) And BTW, if the charge ends up being perjury, and the chargee ends up being Plame or Wilson, do you still support the process? Or is it only legitimate if it ends up demonstrating "criminal leaks from the Bush White House"?

[Kate]

CD-you clearly don't understand government. You have huge bureaucracies with hundreds of thousands of employees, conflicting views on policies, appointed by different parties. There is no way Bush could know who leaked this name.

The Pentagon might have suspects based on who had access to the draft SouthCom report, but I suspect the list is long. Plus other agencies might have had access to the draft report like CIA, FBI, State...so the net widens.

It might have been a Clinton holdover, or someone who is leaking for "future consideration".

No the responsibility for releasing the source belongs to the one who prepetuated this mess-Newsweek.

[Tom Maguire]

I create my own reality. Learned it from the Bush crowd. Try it sometime.

The subtle implication that I am not already doing so will NOT get you back in my good graces. Coming here looking for a chump, indeed...

[creepy dude]

Kate, I agree with you that Bush is an ineffectual puppet leader with no control over the rogue elements in his own administration.

CT and TM-you are both admirably consistent and intellectually honest. I therefore continue to assume you are moles infiltrating the Republican establishment. Keep up the good work.

[creepy dude]

btw TM i really wasn't expecting chumps to show up on this fine website, that's why I imported some quotes from the Corner. I know your parties are generally BYOM (Bring your own moron).

[creepy dude]

Oh Lord God Almighty-now TODAY on her site Ms. Malodorouskin retracts statements in her book and admits to engaging in far sloppier reporting behavior than Newsweek.

Call me Diogenes from here on out.

[Tom Maguire]

The "Irish Diogenes" - I like it!

Eventually, I guess that Ms. Malodorouskin is not Russian - here is the missing link. Ms. Malkin does a fine job defending her work, so I will have to pass.

And Glenn came out against a Congressional investigation.

Hugh Hewitt was a bit of a voice in the wilderness last time with this - if I recall the post to which I linked, Taranto, Reynolds, and Goldberg, as well as some Congressional Chairperson, ended up on my side (unbeknownst to them, I expect)