Powered by TypePad

« The Next "Must Have" | Main | I Am On His Side, But... »

May 25, 2005


creepy dude

Don't forget Larry Di Rita's "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch [i.e. Newsweek's source] said."

creepy dude

Furthermore, have you seen anywhere that the people killed in the riots were killed by other than Afghani security forces?

There's lots of blame to go around, no doubt, and Newsweek clearly has to take some. But it's the selective calculated outrage that brings out the cynic in me.

creepy dude

In your voluminous research, can you find a quote from any U.S. government official at any time saying words to the effect: "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch [i.e. CIA informer 'Curveball'] said." ?

Cecil Turner

"Well, clearly, the report was used to incite violence by people who oppose the United States . . ."

Give the man a kewpie doll!

It's also worth noting that a general in charge of an area of operations is a foremost authority on relative military strengths, and whether a particular group is inflicting serious casualties, etc. He's less of an authority on the group's motivations, or how any particular protest incident was orchestrated. Why media figures from a certain corporation would suddenly find his opinion more credible than that of reporters on the scene is a bit hard to justify . . .

TJ Jackson

The main point is whether Newsweek released these stories to discredit the war and Bush. Obviously they didn't realize what would happen. Most certainly not that they'd be revealed as the new Dan Rather but nevertheless their agenda has been exposed and they have lost what little credibility they might have especially after Evans incredible statement that "the media was going to bloster Kerryt by 15 points."







Tom Maguire

Re: "Ooops" - isn't this the same set of allegations that Newsweek's source was referring to, and which continue to be unconfirmed?

Oh, Irish - May 14 is Di Rita's "People are dead" quote. I left out Rumsfeld's similar yet vaguer comment that "people are dead", since, well, they are.

Cecil Turner

"The summaries of FBI interviews, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union as part of an ongoing lawsuit . . ."

I suspect that would be this lawsuit, which has, among its allegations:

On one occasion, a guard in Plaintiff Ahmed's cellblock noticed a copy of the Koran on the floor and kicked it. On another occasion, a guard threw a copy of the Koran in a toilet bucket. Detainees, including Plaintiffs, were also at times prevented from calling out the call to prayer, with American soldiers either silencing the person who was issuing the prayer call or playing loud music to drown out the call to prayer.
I wonder, however, why it's newsworthy that prisoners have alleged Koran abuse? And what's the point of emphasizing "FBI interviews"? Are we supposed to believe the detainees are more truthful when talking to the FBI? Or is it another attempt to portray the claims as "documented" by government sources? Finally, is it cynical of me to wonder why the WaPo is suddenly so active (presumably it's Dana Priest in the above May 17 press briefing) in trying to make their co-publication look a little better?


Thisa sure sounds like cause and effect to me (essentially unroprted by the msm of course):

"By my reckoning, just five American newspapers mentioned the name of Imran Khan last week ....

Imran was the guy who, in a ferocious speech broadcast on Pakistani TV, brought it (Newsweek's Koran story) to the attention of his fellow Muslims, many of whom promptly rioted, with the result that 17 people are dead."


creepy dude

TM the declarative statement is not the key part, it's the inferential statement following the "because."

IOW Afghani cops shot street protesters not because they paniced, or the crowd threatened them, etc. but because of what a senior government official said.

That's a fun game. The source had a mother didn'the? So people are dead because some bitch gave birth to this son. The knee bone is connected to the thigh bone...

Along with national review though-i again call for a special prosecutor to ferret out this nefarious son of a bitch.

creepy dude

Oops myself-Now I see that you did quote Di Rita. My bad.

You expect me to read all that before popping off?

Cecil Turner

"IOW Afghani cops shot street protesters not because they paniced, or the crowd threatened them, etc. but because of what a senior government official said."

Apparently it wasn't all that one-sided:

Police officers are reported to be among four dead in Ghazni province, 150km south-west of the capital, Kabul, after security forces clashed with protesters.

Interior ministry spokesman Lutfullah Mashal told the BBC that some of the demonstrators involved in the Ghazni protest were armed with AK 47s and handguns.

"They tried to attack the governor's house and office", he said, "and fired on police and afghan army troops."

"That's a fun game."

Ooh, let me play! How about: a couple of soldiers abused detainees not because they had a sadistic streak and were left unsupervised, but because of: a memo they never saw; a set of interrogation guidelines that didn't apply to them (that they obviously weren't following); or obviously unlawful suggestions from someone not in their chain of command?

creepy dude

Curious and curiouser. So the protesters "tried to attack the governor's house and office" because guards in Guanatanomo commodified a Koran? Makes perfect sense.


This is a little out of hand; the commentary on the commentary; the he said-he said; reporters making (and making up) the news, not reporting the news. The MSM bends over backwards so as not to offend Muslim sensibilities, but then insists that no one could've anticipated a violent reaction to such allegations. Doesn't pass the smell test. Or is the MSM culturally ignorant of everything outside of the Upper West Side, Georgetown, and Hollywood?

Maybe the MSM should learn where the al Qaeda types learned to be something less than scrupulously honest, and to use "western" sensibilities to their advantage, when being interrogated. See al Qaeda's training manual: http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm


You expect me to read all that before popping off?

I think that might create an Eighth Amendment problem.

Kevin R.C. 'Hognose' O'Brien

Dana Priest is probably the reporter referred to. Dana Priest is the one with the anonymous source that produced the April 3, 2003 report about the capture of Jessica Lynch, "She Was Fighting To The Death," a report based (as is normal for the Post) entirely on anonymous (or nonexistent?) sources.

When Lynch was rescued and reported that no such events befell her, Priest would have been embarrassed, if she had any integrity. Post Ombudsman Michael Getler lamely concluded that the report was defensible, see the column here, because -- I am not making this up -- "the events described could have taken place."

That's the standard of the so-called professionals at the Washington Post. That's their ombudsman for Christ's sake.

The comments to this entry are closed.